THE 30 LIE'S (11 - 20)
LIE NO 11
MA: “18 In relation to charge one, I expanded that Mr Webb's failures in reporting the horn defect were that as per the Rule Book: 18.3 he did not reduce speed”;
LIE NO 11: “18.3 he did not reduce speed”.
EVIDENCE: As I have shown, the rule book for a partial failure of the warning horn did not instruct me to reduce speed, yet another LIE.
Findings: From the disciplinary hearing outcome letter as previously shown it never mentions anything about reducing the speed of the train.
LIE NO 12
MA: “18 In relation to charge one, I expanded that Mr Webb's failures in reporting the horn defect were that as per the Rule Book: “18.5 his actions ensured that the unit remained in public service until it reached the depot”.
LIE NO 12: “18.5 his actions ensured that the unit remained in public service until it reached
the depot”.
EVIDENCE: My actions would have been the same actions as TransPennine Express Control if
they had been informed, the contingency plans clearly state that a train with a partial failure of the warning horn can stay in traffic all day and run unrestricted regarding speed. Therefore Mark Atkinson is LYING by trying to make out this train should have been removed from service and only stayed in service because of my actions. Mark Atkinson is aware of these contingency plans.
OTHER EVIDENCE: There has never been a train taken out of service with a partially defective warning horn because this type of failure occurred everyday in cold and wet weather to every single 185 train.
MA: “18 In relation to charge one, I expanded that Mr Webb's failures in reporting the horn defect were that as per the Rule Book: “18.5 his actions ensured that the unit remained in public service until it reached the depot”.
LIE NO 12: “18.5 his actions ensured that the unit remained in public service until it reached
the depot”.
EVIDENCE: My actions would have been the same actions as TransPennine Express Control if
they had been informed, the contingency plans clearly state that a train with a partial failure of the warning horn can stay in traffic all day and run unrestricted regarding speed. Therefore Mark Atkinson is LYING by trying to make out this train should have been removed from service and only stayed in service because of my actions. Mark Atkinson is aware of these contingency plans.
OTHER EVIDENCE: There has never been a train taken out of service with a partially defective warning horn because this type of failure occurred everyday in cold and wet weather to every single 185 train.
LIE NO 13
MA: “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”;
LIE NO 13: (a),“19.1 he had failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting which resulted in
the train not being taken out of service immediately”;
EVIDENCE: This is an unbelievable pack of LIES, never in my railway career of over 25 years front end experience has any train been removed from service for a near miss incident. Despite numerous requests (evidence available) TPE could not produce a procedure for reporting a near
miss, this statement is blatant LIES.
Remember this statement: "Hang on a minute, if your so concerned about this train having faults on it, (b), at the point when you arrived in York, that is the time and place to make sure the train doesn't go any further".
So we have: (a) train taken out of service IMMEDIATELY and
(b) train taken out of service in YORK.
Which one is the truth?
ANSWER: They are both LIE'S.
The following are described in OTHER EVIDENCE below:
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
19.4 he had failed to report the matter to the train operating company's control.
Findings: As shown previously from the disciplinary hearing outcome letter, Mark Atkinson was fully aware that this alleged near miss never happened, therefore there would not be a need to follow any reporting procedure or for that train to be taken out of service immediately.
OTHER EVIDENCE: Why would I need to stop and report an incident that never occurred, that would have possibly been a Gross Misconduct charge. How could I possibly report an event
that never happened, the above is absolute nonsense.
LIE NO 14
MA: “20 In relation to charge three (the train defects), I stated that: 20.1 he failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting train defects; 20.2 he did not stop and report the safety defects correctly; 20.3 he did not inform the company's control/the signal box or controlling signal”;
LIE NO 14: I will cover this as 1 LIE, "I stated that: 20.1 he failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting train defects; 20.2 he did not stop and report the safety defects correctly; 20.3 he
did not inform the company's control/the signal box or controlling signal";
EVIDENCE: 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?
For the above defects where does it state that I have to inform the signaller? All LIES.
If Mark Atkinson really stated all of the above about Charge 3, I would like him to show anyone where in the minutes of my hearing this was mentioned, especially when his disciplinary hearing outcome letter says the following in the findings below. How can defects that have no relation to a warning horn be included and dealt with by charge 1?
Findings: Charge 3 is withdrawn due to being included and proven in charge 1.
MA: “20 In relation to charge three (the train defects), I stated that: 20.1 he failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting train defects; 20.2 he did not stop and report the safety defects correctly; 20.3 he did not inform the company's control/the signal box or controlling signal”;
LIE NO 14: I will cover this as 1 LIE, "I stated that: 20.1 he failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting train defects; 20.2 he did not stop and report the safety defects correctly; 20.3 he
did not inform the company's control/the signal box or controlling signal";
EVIDENCE: 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?
For the above defects where does it state that I have to inform the signaller? All LIES.
If Mark Atkinson really stated all of the above about Charge 3, I would like him to show anyone where in the minutes of my hearing this was mentioned, especially when his disciplinary hearing outcome letter says the following in the findings below. How can defects that have no relation to a warning horn be included and dealt with by charge 1?
Findings: Charge 3 is withdrawn due to being included and proven in charge 1.
LIE NO 15
MA: “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”;
LIE NO 15: “22.1 the full warning horn failure”
EVIDENCE: 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 where they were above freezing, the horn started functioning normally due to the rise in temperature.
Where did Mark Atkinson get information from that led him to believe that the temperature on the morning in question was "low"? Did he get this from the investigation report? In the investigation report, Stephen Percival used the following statement from Engineering Manager Steve Bridge to say that the temperature was not "low".
"I do not believe the temperature on the 14th was at a level which would cause a problem with the horn in service".
Findings: From the disciplinary hearing outcome letter Mark Atkinson's finding clearly relate to a PARTIAL FAILURE of the warning horn, yet above he blatantly LIE'S in calling this a "FULL" failure, meaning a COMPLETE failure of the warning horn.
OTHER EVIDENCE: UNBELIEVABLY, earlier in this witness statement Mark Atkinson calls the warning horn failure on numerous occasions a “DEFECTIVE” warning horn, but now all of a sudden he describes it as being a “FULL” warning horn failure, again the terminology “FULL” is never used on the railway for describing a warning horn failure, I gather that Mark Atkinson's terminology of “FULL” means a complete failure of the warning horn. Did I actually have a “FULL, COMPLETE” failure of the warning horn?
LIE NO 16
MA: “23 Mr Webb referred to a Fleet Newsletter, which stated, in relation to the Company's 185 trains, that “since introduction warning (horn) faults had become prevalent during the winter months, especially during damp conditions”. He suggested that if such faults are so prevalent then he should not have to report such problems. I did not find this argument credible as Mr Webb, as former health and safety representative, was fully aware that all safety incidents need to be reported to allow the Company to respond”.
LIE NO 16: “He suggested that if such faults are so prevalent then he should not have to report such problems”.
EVIDENCE: I would like to challenge Mark Atkinson to show me where during my hearing I inferred that because the warning horn faults are so common that a Driver shouldn’t have to report them? MARK ATKINSON, YOU ARE A LIAR.
OTHER EVIDENCE: When did TPE as a company ever respond to me? They ignored every issue I put to them, I can categorically prove through my website and I challenge you all, take action against me if you think or have evidence that anything I state on my website tpeconspiracy.weebly.com is fabricated. I can back everything I say up with reports, letters, emails, audio tapes and much more.
Mark Atkinson stated, "was fully aware that all safety incidents need to be reported to allow the
Company to respond”. The following as Judge Grazin reported from a case management meeting is the "company response", "It is equally not in dispute that in the vast majority, if not all, of those cases, the Respondent (TPE) simply did not respond to them". What chance did I have with this level of IGNORANCE?
MA: “23 Mr Webb referred to a Fleet Newsletter, which stated, in relation to the Company's 185 trains, that “since introduction warning (horn) faults had become prevalent during the winter months, especially during damp conditions”. He suggested that if such faults are so prevalent then he should not have to report such problems. I did not find this argument credible as Mr Webb, as former health and safety representative, was fully aware that all safety incidents need to be reported to allow the Company to respond”.
LIE NO 16: “He suggested that if such faults are so prevalent then he should not have to report such problems”.
EVIDENCE: I would like to challenge Mark Atkinson to show me where during my hearing I inferred that because the warning horn faults are so common that a Driver shouldn’t have to report them? MARK ATKINSON, YOU ARE A LIAR.
OTHER EVIDENCE: When did TPE as a company ever respond to me? They ignored every issue I put to them, I can categorically prove through my website and I challenge you all, take action against me if you think or have evidence that anything I state on my website tpeconspiracy.weebly.com is fabricated. I can back everything I say up with reports, letters, emails, audio tapes and much more.
Mark Atkinson stated, "was fully aware that all safety incidents need to be reported to allow the
Company to respond”. The following as Judge Grazin reported from a case management meeting is the "company response", "It is equally not in dispute that in the vast majority, if not all, of those cases, the Respondent (TPE) simply did not respond to them". What chance did I have with this level of IGNORANCE?
LIE NO 17
MA: “24 In relation to the false reporting of a near miss incident, Mr Webb stated on numerous
occasions that he had made similar false reports previously but had never been disciplined. He indicated that he only did it as it was the actions of a “desperate man”. Mr Trumm also stated that he did not think Mr Webb would get a fair hearing as he felt that the outcome was predetermined due to Mr Webb's previous Trade Union activities”.
LIE NO 17: “Mr Webb stated on numerous occasions that he had made similar false reports previously but had never been disciplined”.
EVIDENCE: 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".
OTHER EVIDENCE: The predetermination is evident for all to see, why would there be so many glaring LIE'S 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. If this outcome was not predetermined then why would TPE engage and use solicitor Simon Robinson against me before my hearing and appeal? I have 2 emails which prove this to be the case, Simon Robinson used a legal privilege
loophole to stop these emails being used at the tribunal.
MA: “24 In relation to the false reporting of a near miss incident, Mr Webb stated on numerous
occasions that he had made similar false reports previously but had never been disciplined. He indicated that he only did it as it was the actions of a “desperate man”. Mr Trumm also stated that he did not think Mr Webb would get a fair hearing as he felt that the outcome was predetermined due to Mr Webb's previous Trade Union activities”.
LIE NO 17: “Mr Webb stated on numerous occasions that he had made similar false reports previously but had never been disciplined”.
EVIDENCE: 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".
OTHER EVIDENCE: The predetermination is evident for all to see, why would there be so many glaring LIE'S 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. If this outcome was not predetermined then why would TPE engage and use solicitor Simon Robinson against me before my hearing and appeal? I have 2 emails which prove this to be the case, Simon Robinson used a legal privilege
loophole to stop these emails being used at the tribunal.
LIE NO 18
MA: “29 I asserted during the hearing that if Mr Webb was as concerned about the horn defects as he alleged he was, then prior to arriving in York he should have reported the matter immediately and made sure the train did not go any further. In response to this, he admitted that he did not report the matter at the first available opportunity”.
LIE NO 18: "then prior to arriving in York he should have reported the matter immediately and made sure the train did not go any further”.
EVIDENCE: I had a partial failure of the warning horn, the rule book clearly states that I tell the train operators control at the first “convenient opportunity”, not immediately. Being a Route
Driver Manager, Mark Atkinson should be fully aware of this ruling, but yet again all he does is LIE.
OTHER EVIDENCE: Mark Atkinson is clearly of the opinion that for a partial failure of the warning horn the train should have been stopped by me and not moved, he then states that I did not
report the matter at the “first available opportunity”, yet the rule book states the “first convenient opportunity”, there is a massive difference between “available” and “convenient” in this statement. It is extremely evident from this that mark Atkinson judged me on his set of rules not the actual rule book, his interpretation of this rule book is deliberately and fundamentally
wrong, hence the continual LIE'S.
The following is what Mark Atkinson said in my hearing, "Hang on a minute, if your so concerned about this train having faults on it, at the point when you arrived in York, that is the time and place to make the train doesn't go any further".
LIE NO 18 he says "PRIOR TO ARRIVING IN YORK", above he states, "AT THE POINT WHEN YOU ARRIVED IN YORK", both in relation to making sure the train, "DOESN'T GO ANY FURTHER".
HEADS YOU LOSE, TAILS YOU LOSE!
MA: “29 I asserted during the hearing that if Mr Webb was as concerned about the horn defects as he alleged he was, then prior to arriving in York he should have reported the matter immediately and made sure the train did not go any further. In response to this, he admitted that he did not report the matter at the first available opportunity”.
LIE NO 18: "then prior to arriving in York he should have reported the matter immediately and made sure the train did not go any further”.
EVIDENCE: I had a partial failure of the warning horn, the rule book clearly states that I tell the train operators control at the first “convenient opportunity”, not immediately. Being a Route
Driver Manager, Mark Atkinson should be fully aware of this ruling, but yet again all he does is LIE.
OTHER EVIDENCE: Mark Atkinson is clearly of the opinion that for a partial failure of the warning horn the train should have been stopped by me and not moved, he then states that I did not
report the matter at the “first available opportunity”, yet the rule book states the “first convenient opportunity”, there is a massive difference between “available” and “convenient” in this statement. It is extremely evident from this that mark Atkinson judged me on his set of rules not the actual rule book, his interpretation of this rule book is deliberately and fundamentally
wrong, hence the continual LIE'S.
The following is what Mark Atkinson said in my hearing, "Hang on a minute, if your so concerned about this train having faults on it, at the point when you arrived in York, that is the time and place to make the train doesn't go any further".
LIE NO 18 he says "PRIOR TO ARRIVING IN YORK", above he states, "AT THE POINT WHEN YOU ARRIVED IN YORK", both in relation to making sure the train, "DOESN'T GO ANY FURTHER".
HEADS YOU LOSE, TAILS YOU LOSE!
LIE NO 19
MA: “32 There was a discussion as to whether or not the horn defect was a partial failure or a full
failure. This was in reference to the fact that the 185 trains have two tones on their horns. If there is a partial failure, i.e. one of the horn tones fails but the other remains working, then the procedure for Drivers is to report the issue at the soonest convenience as there is always the possibility that the other horn would fail".
LIE NO 19: “32 There was a discussion as to whether or not the horn defect was a partial failure or a full failure”.
EVIDENCE: This is another MASSIVE LIE, the minutes of my appeal hearing and the audio from this appeal clearly show that Mark Atkinson and myself never had any discussion that ascertained what type of failure that warning horn had, I told him from the beginning that I treated the incident as a partial failure of the warning horn.
OTHER EVIDENCE: In which procedure does it state report the issue at the "soonest" convenience? More IMPORTANTLY, what Mark Atkinson is saying in this statement is the fact
that he is fully aware that any train that only has one tone of the warning horn working is susceptible to the other tone failing!
My argument regarding this, is why do TPE therefore allow their trains which have a partially defective warning to run all day at speeds up to 100mph? The trains can at anytime lose both tones of the warning horn, I have documented proof of this, is it therefore safe to run a train when the following scenario could happen?
SCENARIO: It is a cold damp day, you are travelling at 100mph when you encounter an area
of bends and bridges, as you travel round one of these bends you see in front of you approximately 1000 feet away a group of track workers (this could be young children or anyone), you immediately push your warning horn upwards, you get no response! Remembering at this speed you are travelling at 150 feet per second, (approximately 7 seconds to impact). If you don't actually freeze through the shock, (150 feet per second), you then push the lever downwards, (150 feet per second), nothing happens!
Would or should anyone have to go through this sort of traumatic 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 TPE and especially Route Driver Manager Mark Atkinson are oblivious to this danger that a simple risk assessment would identify.
This scenario WILL HAPPEN one day, the only satisfaction I will gain when this happens is seeing numerous individuals on CORPORATE MANSLAUGHTER CHARGES.
MA: “32 There was a discussion as to whether or not the horn defect was a partial failure or a full
failure. This was in reference to the fact that the 185 trains have two tones on their horns. If there is a partial failure, i.e. one of the horn tones fails but the other remains working, then the procedure for Drivers is to report the issue at the soonest convenience as there is always the possibility that the other horn would fail".
LIE NO 19: “32 There was a discussion as to whether or not the horn defect was a partial failure or a full failure”.
EVIDENCE: This is another MASSIVE LIE, the minutes of my appeal hearing and the audio from this appeal clearly show that Mark Atkinson and myself never had any discussion that ascertained what type of failure that warning horn had, I told him from the beginning that I treated the incident as a partial failure of the warning horn.
OTHER EVIDENCE: In which procedure does it state report the issue at the "soonest" convenience? More IMPORTANTLY, what Mark Atkinson is saying in this statement is the fact
that he is fully aware that any train that only has one tone of the warning horn working is susceptible to the other tone failing!
My argument regarding this, is why do TPE therefore allow their trains which have a partially defective warning to run all day at speeds up to 100mph? The trains can at anytime lose both tones of the warning horn, I have documented proof of this, is it therefore safe to run a train when the following scenario could happen?
SCENARIO: It is a cold damp day, you are travelling at 100mph when you encounter an area
of bends and bridges, as you travel round one of these bends you see in front of you approximately 1000 feet away a group of track workers (this could be young children or anyone), you immediately push your warning horn upwards, you get no response! Remembering at this speed you are travelling at 150 feet per second, (approximately 7 seconds to impact). If you don't actually freeze through the shock, (150 feet per second), you then push the lever downwards, (150 feet per second), nothing happens!
Would or should anyone have to go through this sort of traumatic 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 TPE and especially Route Driver Manager Mark Atkinson are oblivious to this danger that a simple risk assessment would identify.
This scenario WILL HAPPEN one day, the only satisfaction I will gain when this happens is seeing numerous individuals on CORPORATE MANSLAUGHTER CHARGES.
LIE NO 20
MA: “33 Mr Webb also referred to recent incidents where defects had not been reported by other Drivers but did not provide examples. He initially alleged that those employees were as guilty as he was but after discussion, he agreed that his actions had differed to the comparators he raised
in that he had reported an incident which did not take place”.
LIE NO 20: “33 Mr Webb also referred to recent incidents where defects had not been reported
by other Drivers but did not provide examples”.
EVIDENCE: 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”.
Earlier on in the hearing (43) I said the following, "I've brought a sample of reports that I have put in, I have numerous reports, numerous repair book slips"
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.
LIE'S 21 -30 will appear on Page 3.
MA: “33 Mr Webb also referred to recent incidents where defects had not been reported by other Drivers but did not provide examples. He initially alleged that those employees were as guilty as he was but after discussion, he agreed that his actions had differed to the comparators he raised
in that he had reported an incident which did not take place”.
LIE NO 20: “33 Mr Webb also referred to recent incidents where defects had not been reported
by other Drivers but did not provide examples”.
EVIDENCE: 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”.
Earlier on in the hearing (43) I said the following, "I've brought a sample of reports that I have put in, I have numerous reports, numerous repair book slips"
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.
LIE'S 21 -30 will appear on Page 3.