THE 30 LIE'S (21 - 30)
LIE'S NO 21 & 22
MA: “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”.
The whole passage above is a complete LIE.
LIE NO 21: “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”.
LIE NO 22: “and that as a result of this action the train had stayed in service”.
EVIDENCE: (LIE 21) The rule book does not tell me to report a partial failure of the warning horn as soon as the matter arises. (LIE 22) TPE Contingency Plans state that any train with a partial failure of the warning horn can remain in traffic and can run at line speed without any restrictions.
OTHER EVIDENCE: "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? If as Mark Atkinson is implying, that I was putting peoples lives at risk then clearly TPE contingency plans do exactly the same! So in the 5 years since this hearing what has Mark Atkinson actually done to prevent the “risk” to those on or about the railway infrastructure? The answer is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
LIE'S NO 23 & 24
MA: “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”.
LIE NO 23: “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”.
EVIDENCE: Firstly TPE could not supply me with any written procedure for reporting a near
miss, I explained from the outset that there had not been any near miss, therefore how can I possibly have failed to follow a supposed procedure and be found guilty of failing to report something that never happened?
LIE NO 24: “indicated that he had previously fabricated other incidents”.
EVIDENCE: I never once said that I had previously fabricated other incidents.
MA: “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”.
LIE NO 23: “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”.
EVIDENCE: Firstly TPE could not supply me with any written procedure for reporting a near
miss, I explained from the outset that there had not been any near miss, therefore how can I possibly have failed to follow a supposed procedure and be found guilty of failing to report something that never happened?
LIE NO 24: “indicated that he had previously fabricated other incidents”.
EVIDENCE: I never once said that I had previously fabricated other incidents.
LIE NO 25
MA: “Above all, I noted that Mr Webb had demonstrated a wilful 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”:
LIE NO 25: “Above all, I noted that Mr Webb had demonstrated a wilful and blatant disregard for
the procedures”.
EVIDENCE: How can he say that I demonstrated a wilful 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? If anything as this report has shown so far, Mark Atkinson is the one who has demonstrated a wilful and blatant disregard for the procedures? He fails to understand the rule book in conjunction with his own companies contingency plans
and also uses non railway terminology which was the first rule we were ever taught on the railway, do not use slang words or complete jargon, always use railway terminology. Yet Mark Atkinson is in the position of a Senior Manager!
MA: “Above all, I noted that Mr Webb had demonstrated a wilful 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”:
LIE NO 25: “Above all, I noted that Mr Webb had demonstrated a wilful and blatant disregard for
the procedures”.
EVIDENCE: How can he say that I demonstrated a wilful 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? If anything as this report has shown so far, Mark Atkinson is the one who has demonstrated a wilful and blatant disregard for the procedures? He fails to understand the rule book in conjunction with his own companies contingency plans
and also uses non railway terminology which was the first rule we were ever taught on the railway, do not use slang words or complete jargon, always use railway terminology. Yet Mark Atkinson is in the position of a Senior Manager!
LIE NO 26
MA: “40.2 in relation to the allegation that the outcome of the hearing was predetermined, on the basis of his Trade Union activities, I confirmed that I was present to listen to his responses and judge the matter on the information I received that day. As mentioned above, aside from witnessing Mr Webb representing an employee at a disciplinary hearing I had no knowledge of
his previous Trade Union activities. I saw no evidence to suggest that the matter was predetermined. Certainly I had not predetermined it”;
LIE NO 26: “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. I saw no evidence to suggest that the matter was predetermined. Certainly I had not predetermined it”;
EVIDENCE: Please read the following passage of dialogue from my hearing and then make your own decision on predetermination. The audio is available on the website tpeconspiracy.weebly.com, you will notice how the silence lasts an eternity because Mark Atkinson 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”.
OTHER EVIDENCE: 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”. If you listen to the audio that is on this website, it will help you understand the attitude of Mark Atkinson in that appeal hearing.
MA: “40.2 in relation to the allegation that the outcome of the hearing was predetermined, on the basis of his Trade Union activities, I confirmed that I was present to listen to his responses and judge the matter on the information I received that day. As mentioned above, aside from witnessing Mr Webb representing an employee at a disciplinary hearing I had no knowledge of
his previous Trade Union activities. I saw no evidence to suggest that the matter was predetermined. Certainly I had not predetermined it”;
LIE NO 26: “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. I saw no evidence to suggest that the matter was predetermined. Certainly I had not predetermined it”;
EVIDENCE: Please read the following passage of dialogue from my hearing and then make your own decision on predetermination. The audio is available on the website tpeconspiracy.weebly.com, you will notice how the silence lasts an eternity because Mark Atkinson 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”.
OTHER EVIDENCE: 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”. If you listen to the audio that is on this website, it will help you understand the attitude of Mark Atkinson in that appeal hearing.
LIE NO 27
MA: “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”;
LIE NO 27: “40.3 in relation to the suggestion by Mr Webb that the Company's alleged failures to respond to his defect reports had forced him to take the actions he did, I found that even if he was right (which I did not find was the case)”.
EVIDENCE: Mark Atkinson in this statement insinuated that he had looked into my complaint, that my defect reports were not responded to. So what did he do to justify his statement where he said, "which I did not find was the case"? Earlier he reckoned that he approached this hearing with no prior knowledge?
MA: “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”;
LIE NO 27: “40.3 in relation to the suggestion by Mr Webb that the Company's alleged failures to respond to his defect reports had forced him to take the actions he did, I found that even if he was right (which I did not find was the case)”.
EVIDENCE: Mark Atkinson in this statement insinuated that he had looked into my complaint, that my defect reports were not responded to. So what did he do to justify his statement where he said, "which I did not find was the case"? Earlier he reckoned that he approached this hearing with no prior knowledge?
LIE'S NO 28 & 29
MA: “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”;
LIE NO 28: “40.4 having considered Mr Webb's admission that he had fabricated incidents before and reported them without disciplinary sanction”.
EVIDENCE: Totally twisted round, 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. I have documented evidence of this, I always back up everything I state with evidence.
LIE NO 29: “following consideration of further documentation”,
EVIDENCE: How could Mark Atkinson possibly state this? He refused to look at any of the evidence I put before him, he had no other paperwork with him, where did this so called documentation appear from?
MA: “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”;
LIE NO 28: “40.4 having considered Mr Webb's admission that he had fabricated incidents before and reported them without disciplinary sanction”.
EVIDENCE: Totally twisted round, 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. I have documented evidence of this, I always back up everything I state with evidence.
LIE NO 29: “following consideration of further documentation”,
EVIDENCE: How could Mark Atkinson possibly state this? He refused to look at any of the evidence I put before him, he had no other paperwork with him, where did this so called documentation appear from?
LIE NO 30
MA: “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”.
LIE NO 30: "And that he would do it again",
EVIDENCE: Mark Atkinson strikes again with a BLATANT LIE, I never once said that I would do it again, the minutes are the only evidence required and speak for themselves.
OTHER EVIDENCE: 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.
How could any person make so many LIES in a case where they are adamant the charges should be gross misconduct? If the charges were of a nature that warranted gross misconduct then there would be no need to LIE.
The problem TPE and Mark Atkinson had was that the initial investigation was a complete sham, it was carried out with one agenda and that was to make me look as bad as humanely possible. The first charge levelled against me that I failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting a defective warning horn could not have possibly originated from that investigation report, so where did they pluck this charge from and why? We all know that answer.
I was on the receiving end of one of the biggest stitch ups the railway has ever seen.
Message for West Yorkshire Police: As you can see, there are numerous lie's in this statement, the following information is from the Crown Prosecution Service.
Factors to be considered include:
Please remember this passage: 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.
The damage this did to me is immense, it caused suffering you cannot imagine, especially to my family.
MA: “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”.
LIE NO 30: "And that he would do it again",
EVIDENCE: Mark Atkinson strikes again with a BLATANT LIE, I never once said that I would do it again, the minutes are the only evidence required and speak for themselves.
OTHER EVIDENCE: 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.
How could any person make so many LIES in a case where they are adamant the charges should be gross misconduct? If the charges were of a nature that warranted gross misconduct then there would be no need to LIE.
The problem TPE and Mark Atkinson had was that the initial investigation was a complete sham, it was carried out with one agenda and that was to make me look as bad as humanely possible. The first charge levelled against me that I failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting a defective warning horn could not have possibly originated from that investigation report, so where did they pluck this charge from and why? We all know that answer.
I was on the receiving end of one of the biggest stitch ups the railway has ever seen.
Message for West Yorkshire Police: As you can see, there are numerous lie's in this statement, the following information is from the Crown Prosecution Service.
Factors to be considered include:
- the number of offences - At least 30 lie's.
- whether planned or spontaneous - Most definitely planned as he knew from the hearing what actually happened with my train that morning.
- whether they were persisted in - All the way through his witness statement and in numerous places totally contradicting himself.
- whether the lies told or fabrications embarked upon had any actual impact on the proceedings in question - Fooled Judge Burton who then ignored my representations.
- whether the activities of the offender drew in others - He acted on some of TPE management input and that of Simon Robinson solicitor.
- the relationship between others drawn in and the offender - All TPE management.
- the whole course of conduct - Disgusting behaviour deliberately manifested to cause harm.
Please remember this passage: 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.
The damage this did to me is immense, it caused suffering you cannot imagine, especially to my family.