Upskirting Train Driver Avoids Prison

[northwichcat]

There doesn't need to be a rule against the commission of a serious criminal offence (sex offence) while on duty. It is gross misconduct in any job and would justify immediate summary dismissal.

Indeed. A specific law was introduced for this purpose and the crime was committed while he was on duty. If a pub had a barman going around stealing wallets as they are collecting empty glasses, you'd expect the employer to take action.

 

[Bluejays]

Can't believe I've just read this, what a vile creature. Shame the sentence was only suspended,. Although pleasing that he has been well and truly exposed and will be subject to the well deserved stigma of what he has done for the rest of his life.

 

[mpthomson]

This is misleading. The MP, Christopher Chope, blocked the passage of the law in objection to parliamentary procedure rather than to the bill itself. He stated that he would "wholeheartedly" support a government bill that outlawed upskirting.

Indeed. He has a history of opposing bad legislation and that which ignores parliamentary procedure, even when he supports what the bill is designed to tackle. He's just a stickler for well worded and appropriately dealt with legislation.

 

[northwichcat]

Indeed. He has a history of opposing bad legislation and that which ignores parliamentary procedure, even when he supports what the bill is designed to tackle. He's just a stickler for well worded and appropriately dealt with legislation.

Yeah. The way it got reported and most people saw it was a Lib Dem MP had proposed a common sense private members' bill and an old fashioned Tory MP blocked it. When the reality was he objected to private members' bills being used and wasn't prepared to make any exceptions for their use.

 

[12LDA28C]

All factors will be taken into consideration including such things as the costs involved in training a replacement and whether or not there was an actual rule prohibiting the said behaviour.

This is nonsense. A criminal act was committed, for a start. However, the report does not say the driver was sacked, and he may well have been allowed to resign.

 

[northwichcat]

However, the report does not say the driver was sacked, and he may well have been allowed to resign.

Given he's been named in the media, I don't think it makes much difference if he's sacked or if he resigned. Sometimes people like to think they're in control and they made the decision. But if you resign and you're suspended for the duration of your notice period, what difference does it make?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Happily, offences (of all kinds) against passengers/customers by rail staff are overwhelmingly outnumbered by ones the other way around.

https://www.itv.com/news/granada/20...et-guard-at-manchester-piccadilly-spared-jail

You cannot cite that as something of a comparative. The offence remains the same and all offenders should receive the same punishment, whosoever they are.

 

[sor]

Indeed. He has a history of opposing bad legislation and that which ignores parliamentary procedure, even when he supports what the bill is designed to tackle. He's just a stickler for well worded and appropriately dealt with legislation.

... except for his own private members bills and those of his friends.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Given he's been named in the media, I don't think it makes much difference if he's sacked or if he resigned. Sometimes people like to think they're in control and they made the decision. But if you resign and you're suspended for the duration of your notice period, what difference does it make?

Not a lot. You still aren't going to work for the railway again, nor get a useful reference.

 

[12LDA28C]

Given he's been named in the media, I don't think it makes much difference if he's sacked or if he resigned. Sometimes people like to think they're in control and they made the decision. But if you resign and you're suspended for the duration of your notice period, what difference does it make?

It makes quite a lot of difference with regard to gaining further employment, and this is often a factor in the rail industry when a driver is allowed to resign rather then being sacked following a safety of the line incident.

 

[ExRes]

... except for his own private members bills and those of his friends.

Which, naturally, you'll quote in full

 

[12LDA28C]

Not a lot. You still aren't going to work for the railway again, nor get a useful reference.

I believe it's not permitted these days to give a negative reference, only to decline to provide one.

 

[43066]

It makes quite a lot of difference with regard to gaining further employment, and this is often a factor in the rail industry when a driver is allowed to resign rather then being sacked following a safety of the line incident.

Albeit, in the case of qualified drivers, their safety of the line record will be disclosed to any future employer.

Whether the person resigned or was terminated, and the surrounding circumstances, generally won’t be included on official references these days, albeit the railway is a small world so it’s easy for employers to find things out unofficially.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I believe it's not permitted these days to give a negative reference, only to decline to provide one.

There's no such rule, however companies are wary of providing negative references in case they are sued if they are incorrect, which is why most simply give confirmation of the start and end date of employment and possibly the job title held. However a statement that the employee was convicted of a criminal offence is a matter of public and verifiable fact, so there would be less of a risk of simply providing that information.

And that aside, it would be incredibly brazen of someone who had either been sacked or asked to resign in advance of being sacked to ask that employer for a reference. It's fairly likely that "off" would feature in the response (there's no specific legal right to one).

 

[12LDA28C]

Albeit, in the case of qualified drivers, the safety of the line record will be disclosed to any future employer.

Whether the person resigned or was terminated, and the surrounding circumstances, generally won’t be included on official references these days, albeit the railway is a small world so it’s easy for employers to find things out unofficially.

Indeed, although I believe in certain circumstances the ability to draw the railway pension can be affected if somebody has been dismissed, perhaps someone can clarify.

 

[greatkingrat]

Indeed, although I believe in certain circumstances the ability to draw the railway pension can be affected if somebody has been dismissed, perhaps someone can clarify.

That is only in cases of fraud. So if someone was stealing money from the ticket office, the company could potentially try and reclaim money lost from their pension. However it doesn't apply to most dismissals, even if it is gross misconduct.

 

[ainsworth74]

Which, naturally, you'll quote in full

It's hard to quote them all in full as there are quite a lot but the Parliament website has a decent search function and so you can find a list of all the Private Members bills he's currently sponsoring here. But just to grab a few at random:

Anonymity of Suspects Bill

A Bill to create an offence of disclosing the identity of a person who is the subject of an investigation in respect of the alleged commission of an offence; and for connected purposes.

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3636

British Broadcasting Corporation (Privatisation) Bill

A Bill to make provision for the privatisation of the British Broadcasting Corporation; and for connected purposes.

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3643

Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Payments Bill

A Bill to place a duty on the Secretary of State to make provision about financial assistance to persons who have suffered disablement following vaccination against Covid-19 and to the next of kin of persons who have died shortly after vaccination against Covid-19; to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the merits of a no-fault compensation scheme to provide such financial assistance, on whether there should be any upper limit on the financial assistance available, on the criteria for eligibility and on whether payment should be made in all cases where there is no other reasonable cause for the death or disablement suffered; to provide for a special time limit under the Limitation Act 1980 for actions in respect of personal injury or death following a Covid-19 vaccination; and for connected purposes.

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3629

Highways Act 1980 (Amendment) Bill
A Bill to amend section 58 of the Highways Act 1980 to restrict the defences available to highway authorities; and for connected purposes.

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3628

Or this article from a while ago now (2010):

For those Tory MPs who crave the red meat of populist right wing legislation, relief is at hand.

An alternative Queen's Speech crafted by Christopher Chope, Peter Bone and Philip Hollobone - the Three Thatcherite Musketeers of the Conservative backbenchers - will emerge on Monday's order paper.

Now the winners of the private members' bill ballot have presented their proposed legislation, the Private Bill Office is now open to receive presentation bills - bills which have no debating time allocated, but which can get discussed if a suitable opening in the Commons agenda appears.

The three quietly occupied the office in relay overnight to ensure they were first in the queue when it opened this morning - and the fruits of their endeavour are 28 presentation bills to gladden the heart of true-blue Tories...

The list includes:

* The EU Membership (Referendum) Bill.
* The BBC Licence Fee (Abolition) Bill
* The National Service Bill
* The Asylum Seekers (Repatriation to Safe Countries) Bill
* The Apprehension of Burglars (Protection from Prosecution) Bill
* The Taxation Freedom Day (Celebration) Bill
* The EU Bill of Rights (Repeal) Bill
* The Snow Clearance (Protection from Prosecution) Bill

...and much, much more, mostly on subjects that won't delight Coalition ministers and Cameroon Tory reformers.

But as the former Labour MP Andrew Dismore demonstrated in the last Parliament, a smart backbencher can get debates and even actual legislation through Parliament if they are fast on their feet and understand the rules of the Commons.

The Three Musketeers are attempting to slip a whole phalanx of unwelcome subjects onto the agenda, and they may well succeed in goading both the forces of socialism and the Coalition whips offices into near apoplexy in the process.

BBC - Mark D'Arcy Blog: Three crafty Musketeers

The blog of Mark D'Arcy

www.bbc.co.uk

He is not some principled warrior fighting for better scrutiny in Parliament by waging a war against Private Members Bills. He is absolutely happy to try and use the procedure when he considers it to his own or his friends benefit. The sooner people realise this the better. If he was truly opposed to the Private Members bill process he would either not try and introduce any at all or, alternatively, the only bill he would be introducing would be a bill to outlaw the process!

 

[greatkingrat]

The difference is that nobody (including Christopher Chope) thinks that his bills have any chance of becoming law. There is a difference between using Private Members Bills as a chance to promote your personal hobbyhorses, and using them to actually pass legislation.

 

[43066]

And that aside, it would be incredibly brazen of someone who had either been sacked or asked to resign in advance of being sacked to ask that employer for a reference. It's fairly likely that "off" would feature in the response (there's no specific legal right to one).

Not sure this is true. As with most large employers a standard HR reference will be produced giving dates employed, job title, and very little else. It won’t necessarily be completed by a line manager, or even anyone who knew the employee.

In the driver grade what generally happens behind the official HR process is that the hiring manager calls his mate who works with you, or is friends with the person who knows you, to find out what you’re really like. Then, based on that conversion, HR are instructed to make an offer or send the usual platitudinal “sorry you were unsuccessful on this occasion” communication.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not sure this is true. As with most large employers a standard HR reference will be produced giving dates employed etc. It won’t necessarily be completed by a line manager, or even anyone who knew the employee.

I think HR are likely to know whether someone was sacked or not (or "resigned short of sacking", to steal a phrase). And I suspect they might just refuse the reference entirely - they are in no way obliged to offer one.

In the driver grade what generally happens is the hiring manager calls his mate who works with you, or is friends with the person who knows you, to find out what you’re really like. Then HR are instructed to make the offer or send the usual platitudes “sorry you were unsuccessful on this occasion etc.”.

Either way, it’s highly unlikely this guy will ever find employment in the industry again.

Indeed, and nor should he.

 

[43066]

I think HR are likely to know whether someone was sacked or not (or "resigned short of sacking", to steal a phrase). And I suspect they might just refuse the reference entirely - they are in no way obliged to offer one.

From prior experience from another industry the policy will generally just be to give the standard bland factual reference, regardless of the circumstances. There’s no real downside to doing this, as no comment is made on the individual’s character or behaviour that anyone could say they’d relied on, and the person could prove they worked for the organisation via HMRC records in any event.

Appreciate we’re somewhat off topic, however.

 

[mike57]

they are in no way obliged to offer one.

and the person could prove they worked for the organisation via HMRC records in any event

I can remember responding something like "I am unable to offer any information or references regarding this individual" in response to a request for a reference for someone who had resigned, but would have been sacked had they not resigned. I was their last supervisor, and did the 'brow wipe' when they put their notice in, and encouraged my boss to put them on gardening leave for the duration of their notice. Some 'low level' dishonesty had been uncovered, but there was a suspicion that this was just the tip of it, and some investigations had begun by HR (Personnel as it was called in those days) but once they had gone personnel didn't persue it. The fact that no one would confirm anything should raise red flags, even back then we were cautioned about putting negative comments in writing.

Hopefully the individual in this case will never find employment in any postion where members of the public could be at risk from his behaviour.

 

[greyman42]

Indeed, although I believe in certain circumstances the ability to draw the railway pension can be affected if somebody has been dismissed, perhaps someone can clarify.

Money in any company pension scheme is your deferred wages so it still belongs to the employee regardless of the circumstances unless it was a non contributory scheme.

 

[skyhigh]

Money in any company pension scheme is your deferred wages so it still belongs to the employee regardless of the circumstances unless it was a non contributory scheme.

Unless the employee was engaged in fraudulent activities and stole money from the company.

 

[12LDA28C]

That is only in cases of fraud. So if someone was stealing money from the ticket office, the company could potentially try and reclaim money lost from their pension. However it doesn't apply to most dismissals, even if it is gross misconduct.

Could the company not claim back their contributions to that individual's pension though, just leaving the individual with their own personal contributions in their pot?

 

[greatkingrat]

Could the company not claim back their contributions to that individual's pension though, just leaving the individual with their own personal contributions in their pot?

That is a common messroom myth. Except in very rare circumstances, there is no difference from a pension point of view between resigning and being dismissed.

 

[greyman42]

Unless the employee was engaged in fraudulent activities and stole money from the company.

Yes there are one or two exceptions.

 

[reb0118]

There doesn't need to be a rule against the commission of a serious criminal offence (sex offence) while on duty. It is gross misconduct in any job and would justify immediate summary dismissal.

You would think so. However, I know of at least three drivers who have had serious criminal charges against them (two proven & one not proven). All managed to keep their jobs. The management, when queried, stated that there was no specific rule requiring dismissal for that particular offence (it was gross misconduct all the way). I believe a manager in one case actually attended court to plead for a non custodial sentence because it would cause inconvenience to the railway.

Coincidentally, there was a severe shortage of drivers at the time. Cynical?

 

[Egg Centric]

You would think so. However, I know of at least three drivers who have had serious criminal charges against them (two proven & one not proven). All managed to keep their jobs. The management, when queried, stated that there was no specific rule requiring dismissal for that particular offence (it was gross misconduct all the way). I believe a manager in one case actually attended court to plead for a non custodial sentence because it would cause inconvenience to the railway.

Coincidentally, there was a severe shortage of drivers at the time. Cynical?

What offences out of interest?

(Only the proven ones please)

Jesus Christ - now @reb0118 has DM'd me the details of those offences they're - IMO - worse than the upskirting. Something's totally wrong with the sentencing disparity. And while I accept they probably don't affect the culprits' suitability to drive trains I cannot see the public accepting if they knew*...

*what I mean by this is that if the drivers had done them say 15 years before they applied to become a driver and had since kept their nose clean, they are not of such a nature that imo they should prelude a driving job for the rest of their natural life as I believe in rehabilitation (although one of them does point at a probably unfixable character defect). But unquestionably a serving train driver who committed them imo should have immediately lost their job.