Railworker withdraws unfair dismissal claim (From Daily Echo)

Looks like network rail mafia have got to him, such a shame. No match for guys with guns though.

ToastyTea wrote:
Looks like network rail mafia have got to him, such a shame. No match for guys with guns though.

or maybe a big liar and now has been found out ?

I guess we'll never know for sure but his account of events is beginning to look like a figment of an over active imagination. If so I hope he apologizes to all those who rushed to support him, but I doubt it.

Such a shame that the matter did not proceed.
Had it done so then the facts would have been in the public domain and left absolutely no doubt as to the reasons behind the Ian's dismissal.
As it is people will continue to take sides on the issue, depending on which side they care to believe.

i glad this Fiasco is over.
shame some people will always believe Mr Faletto's side of the story

It

For whatever reason Mr Faletto lost his job, I think some of the criticism shown towards him is unfair. Having met Mr Faletto several times, I would argue that he possibly has learning difficulties that, for someone of his age, would not have been picked up when he was a child. Perhaps the story that he created was the only way he could cope with the embarrassment of losing his job and, when it spiralled out of control, he found himself in a situation that he could not handle. If my assumption is correct, Mr Faletto could possibly claim compensation under the Disability Discrimination Act because SWT, like all employers, would have a duty to support any additional needs.

eurogordi wrote:
For whatever reason Mr Faletto lost his job, I think some of the criticism shown towards him is unfair. Having met Mr Faletto several times, I would argue that he possibly has learning difficulties that, for someone of his age, would not have been picked up when he was a child. Perhaps the story that he created was the only way he could cope with the embarrassment of losing his job and, when it spiralled out of control, he found himself in a situation that he could not handle. If my assumption is correct, Mr Faletto could possibly claim compensation under the Disability Discrimination Act because SWT, like all employers, would have a duty to support any additional needs.

And then they could wrap the world in cotton wool and we could all live happily ever after.

It is a real pity that his defence team after being shown 'new' evidence have decided to withdraw from his tribunal.Now all the evidence and truth will not be made to the public.CCTV is a great tool,and as Lymington Town had cameras the truth was bound to come out in the end.
As for saying that this man had learning disabilities is an insult to SWT.He was employed at one time under BR as a signalman and due to a major error by him he was demoted to ticket clerk.He was lucky he kept his job and should have been grateful for the faith the railways showed in him.Can you imagine if the railway employed signallers with learning disibilities.
You must also ask yourself why he was moved from Sway to Lymington,despite being popular with many commuters.Also why didn't he have the support from his fellow colleagues on this matter.
I do hope that he will apologise to all the naive people who went along with his 'story' and whom spent a lot of time and energy in campaigning on his behalf.
Also apologies should also be made from certain 'commuters' whom verbally abused the 'stand-in' ticket clerk at Lymington when he was first suspended.
Alas,I do not think Mr.Faletto or these so called friends will do either.

It is pretty obvious now that the shopping trolley was an imagined defence for breaking some pretty sensible safety rules for staff behaviour. Desmond Swayne MP and the others that supported Ian Faletto's reinstatement call must be feeling a bit foolish now. I'm pretty confident that the whole incident will have been caught on CCTV, so I suspect that is the "new evidence" that led Ian to withdraw his case.

so why did it take south west trains so long to come up with this "new evidence"?both south west trains and ian faletto say they have witnesses.so who to believe eh?

tuesday wrote:
so why did it take south west trains so long to come up with this "new evidence"?both south west trains and ian faletto say they have witnesses.so who to believe eh?

Evidence rules that apply in a Court of Law do not apply in an industrial tribunal.
There is no obligation to disclose evidence by or to either party before a hearing. There is also no legal obligation to make public any evidence until it is given in an open hearing.
The evidence would only have been 'new' in that it had not been previously disclosed. In other words 'new' to the eyes of Mr Faletto's legal representative.

friendlylocal wrote:
It is a real pity that his defence team after being shown 'new' evidence have decided to withdraw from his tribunal.Now all the evidence and truth will not be made to the public.CCTV is a great tool,and as Lymington Town had cameras the truth was bound to come out in the end. As for saying that this man had learning disabilities is an insult to SWT.He was employed at one time under BR as a signalman and due to a major error by him he was demoted to ticket clerk.He was lucky he kept his job and should have been grateful for the faith the railways showed in him.Can you imagine if the railway employed signallers with learning disibilities. You must also ask yourself why he was moved from Sway to Lymington,despite being popular with many commuters.Also why didn't he have the support from his fellow colleagues on this matter. I do hope that he will apologise to all the naive people who went along with his 'story' and whom spent a lot of time and energy in campaigning on his behalf. Also apologies should also be made from certain 'commuters' whom verbally abused the 'stand-in' ticket clerk at Lymington when he was first suspended. Alas,I do not think Mr.Faletto or these so called friends will do either.

Can I imagine that the railways would have employed someone with learning difficulties as a signalman? You have a hopelessly outdated view of disability, along with a number of others who write in the Echo. I mean, perish the thought that someone with other than a perfect mind or body should be employed by a railway operating company? Engage brain before writing...

Donald2000 wrote:

friendlylocal wrote:
It is a real pity that his defence team after being shown 'new' evidence have decided to withdraw from his tribunal.Now all the evidence and truth will not be made to the public.CCTV is a great tool,and as Lymington Town had cameras the truth was bound to come out in the end. As for saying that this man had learning disabilities is an insult to SWT.He was employed at one time under BR as a signalman and due to a major error by him he was demoted to ticket clerk.He was lucky he kept his job and should have been grateful for the faith the railways showed in him.Can you imagine if the railway employed signallers with learning disibilities. You must also ask yourself why he was moved from Sway to Lymington,despite being popular with many commuters.Also why didn't he have the support from his fellow colleagues on this matter. I do hope that he will apologise to all the naive people who went along with his 'story' and whom spent a lot of time and energy in campaigning on his behalf. Also apologies should also be made from certain 'commuters' whom verbally abused the 'stand-in' ticket clerk at Lymington when he was first suspended. Alas,I do not think Mr.Faletto or these so called friends will do either.

Can I imagine that the railways would have employed someone with learning difficulties as a signalman? You have a hopelessly outdated view of disability, along with a number of others who write in the Echo. I mean, perish the thought that someone with other than a perfect mind or body should be employed by a railway operating company? Engage brain before writing...

Ok mate, you take the train with the colour blind driver. If you end up crippled for life I'm sure it will be a great comfort to you that the driver was not denied the job because of his disability. Numpty or what?

Can I clarify that it is only my personal suspicion that Mr Faletto may have an undiagnosed learning difficulty. If I am correct, that DOES NOT prevent him having or maintaining a position of responsibility; in fact, some conditions would actually suit the attention to detail that a signal operator would need. Also, providing support for additional needs is not wrapping the world in cotton wool. It is an employment right enshrined in law that all people should be treated equally and fairly, irrespective of their personal situation. Whether Mr Faletto falls within this category is down to his doctors and then his legal advisers to establish.

Can I clarify that it is only my personal suspicion that Mr Faletto may have an undiagnosed learning difficulty. If I am correct, that DOES NOT prevent him having or maintaining a position of responsibility; in fact, some conditions would actually suit the attention to detail that a signal operator would need. Also, providing support for additional needs is not wrapping the world in cotton wool. It is an employment right enshrined in law that all people should be treated equally and fairly, irrespective of their personal situation. Whether Mr Faletto falls within this category is down to his doctors and then his legal advisers to establish.

I see sensible posts on this thread already including some from my friends who have some knowledge of the rail industry. This man seems to have had no friends or supporters among his own colleagues which tells of a hidden story here, and note especially the absence of the RMT - a union prepared to bring all its London Underground members out to defend RMT shop stewards when they have been in clear breach of rules, yet out here in the sticks TMT protection is nowhere to be seen. The RMT members in question were cocincidentally part of the RMT elite who being friends of Bob Crow enjoyhis total protection and behaved as if they knew it. Mr Faletto by contrast is an oddball and possibly a loner whose erratic behaviour ensured he would not enjoy similar support.
But unions are supposed to be about protecting the weakest from the power of the strongest? SWT RMT members - remember that next time Bob Crow is on TV trying to convince us and you that he is standing up for all his members. The reality is that the current RMT is just a vehicle for him to exercise his personal power like a medieval baron.

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
I see sensible posts on this thread already including some from my friends who have some knowledge of the rail industry. This man seems to have had no friends or supporters among his own colleagues which tells of a hidden story here, and note especially the absence of the RMT - a union prepared to bring all its London Underground members out to defend RMT shop stewards when they have been in clear breach of rules, yet out here in the sticks TMT protection is nowhere to be seen. The RMT members in question were cocincidentally part of the RMT elite who being friends of Bob Crow enjoyhis total protection and behaved as if they knew it. Mr Faletto by contrast is an oddball and possibly a loner whose erratic behaviour ensured he would not enjoy similar support.
But unions are supposed to be about protecting the weakest from the power of the strongest? SWT RMT members - remember that next time Bob Crow is on TV trying to convince us and you that he is standing up for all his members. The reality is that the current RMT is just a vehicle for him to exercise his personal power like a medieval baron.

Shock, horror. You mean to say that the unions dont defend every workers rights! No surprise there then.

eurogordi wrote:
Can I clarify that it is only my personal suspicion that Mr Faletto may have an undiagnosed learning difficulty. If I am correct, that DOES NOT prevent him having or maintaining a position of responsibility; in fact, some conditions would actually suit the attention to detail that a signal operator would need. Also, providing support for additional needs is not wrapping the world in cotton wool. It is an employment right enshrined in law that all people should be treated equally and fairly, irrespective of their personal situation. Whether Mr Faletto falls within this category is down to his doctors and then his legal advisers to establish.

I agree that everybody has a place in the world but you do not enter a one legged man in an a**e kicking contest do you. Disability's exist, accept the fact.

eurogordi wrote:
Can I clarify that it is only my personal suspicion that Mr Faletto may have an undiagnosed learning difficulty. If I am correct, that DOES NOT prevent him having or maintaining a position of responsibility; in fact, some conditions would actually suit the attention to detail that a signal operator would need. Also, providing support for additional needs is not wrapping the world in cotton wool. It is an employment right enshrined in law that all people should be treated equally and fairly, irrespective of their personal situation. Whether Mr Faletto falls within this category is down to his doctors and then his legal advisers to establish.

I agree that everybody has a place in the world but you do not enter a one legged man in an a**e kicking contest do you. Disability's exist, accept the fact.

Stillness wrote:

Donald2000 wrote:

friendlylocal wrote: It is a real pity that his defence team after being shown 'new' evidence have decided to withdraw from his tribunal.Now all the evidence and truth will not be made to the public.CCTV is a great tool,and as Lymington Town had cameras the truth was bound to come out in the end. As for saying that this man had learning disabilities is an insult to SWT.He was employed at one time under BR as a signalman and due to a major error by him he was demoted to ticket clerk.He was lucky he kept his job and should have been grateful for the faith the railways showed in him.Can you imagine if the railway employed signallers with learning disibilities. You must also ask yourself why he was moved from Sway to Lymington,despite being popular with many commuters.Also why didn't he have the support from his fellow colleagues on this matter. I do hope that he will apologise to all the naive people who went along with his 'story' and whom spent a lot of time and energy in campaigning on his behalf. Also apologies should also be made from certain 'commuters' whom verbally abused the 'stand-in' ticket clerk at Lymington when he was first suspended. Alas,I do not think Mr.Faletto or these so called friends will do either.

Can I imagine that the railways would have employed someone with learning difficulties as a signalman? You have a hopelessly outdated view of disability, along with a number of others who write in the Echo. I mean, perish the thought that someone with other than a perfect mind or body should be employed by a railway operating company? Engage brain before writing...

Ok mate, you take the train with the colour blind driver. If you end up crippled for life I'm sure it will be a great comfort to you that the driver was not denied the job because of his disability. Numpty or what?

I am not your mate. If you are suggesting that people with learning difficulties are incapable of doing a job, you are completely wrong. Bill Gates for instance, had Asperger Syndrome, are you saying that he was incapable of working? Colour blindness is not a learning disabilty; you stated learning disabilities. Can you tell us what it is you are saying?

hahaha just knew this guy was full of plop, glad he's got his just deserts.
HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEH!

Donald2000 wrote:

Stillness wrote:

Donald2000 wrote:

friendlylocal wrote: It is a real pity that his defence team after being shown 'new' evidence have decided to withdraw from his tribunal.Now all the evidence and truth will not be made to the public.CCTV is a great tool,and as Lymington Town had cameras the truth was bound to come out in the end. As for saying that this man had learning disabilities is an insult to SWT.He was employed at one time under BR as a signalman and due to a major error by him he was demoted to ticket clerk.He was lucky he kept his job and should have been grateful for the faith the railways showed in him.Can you imagine if the railway employed signallers with learning disibilities. You must also ask yourself why he was moved from Sway to Lymington,despite being popular with many commuters.Also why didn't he have the support from his fellow colleagues on this matter. I do hope that he will apologise to all the naive people who went along with his 'story' and whom spent a lot of time and energy in campaigning on his behalf. Also apologies should also be made from certain 'commuters' whom verbally abused the 'stand-in' ticket clerk at Lymington when he was first suspended. Alas,I do not think Mr.Faletto or these so called friends will do either.

Can I imagine that the railways would have employed someone with learning difficulties as a signalman? You have a hopelessly outdated view of disability, along with a number of others who write in the Echo. I mean, perish the thought that someone with other than a perfect mind or body should be employed by a railway operating company? Engage brain before writing...

Ok mate, you take the train with the colour blind driver. If you end up crippled for life I'm sure it will be a great comfort to you that the driver was not denied the job because of his disability. Numpty or what?

I am not your mate. If you are suggesting that people with learning difficulties are incapable of doing a job, you are completely wrong. Bill Gates for instance, had Asperger Syndrome, are you saying that he was incapable of working? Colour blindness is not a learning disabilty; you stated learning disabilities. Can you tell us what it is you are saying?

Yes I can. People have different skills, that's a fact of life. It is people like you that stop people from finding their true callings by saying that they should be grouped in with the main stream of society. If someone has the need to create fictitious stories to explain their irrational behavior perhaps they should express them selves by writing fictional stories rather than being left in charge of the safety of railway users. If you have a problem with my logic perhaps you should start writing books.

Stillness wrote:

Donald2000 wrote:

Stillness wrote:

Donald2000 wrote:

friendlylocal wrote: It is a real pity that his defence team after being shown 'new' evidence have decided to withdraw from his tribunal.Now all the evidence and truth will not be made to the public.CCTV is a great tool,and as Lymington Town had cameras the truth was bound to come out in the end. As for saying that this man had learning disabilities is an insult to SWT.He was employed at one time under BR as a signalman and due to a major error by him he was demoted to ticket clerk.He was lucky he kept his job and should have been grateful for the faith the railways showed in him.Can you imagine if the railway employed signallers with learning disibilities. You must also ask yourself why he was moved from Sway to Lymington,despite being popular with many commuters.Also why didn't he have the support from his fellow colleagues on this matter. I do hope that he will apologise to all the naive people who went along with his 'story' and whom spent a lot of time and energy in campaigning on his behalf. Also apologies should also be made from certain 'commuters' whom verbally abused the 'stand-in' ticket clerk at Lymington when he was first suspended. Alas,I do not think Mr.Faletto or these so called friends will do either.

Can I imagine that the railways would have employed someone with learning difficulties as a signalman? You have a hopelessly outdated view of disability, along with a number of others who write in the Echo. I mean, perish the thought that someone with other than a perfect mind or body should be employed by a railway operating company? Engage brain before writing...

Ok mate, you take the train with the colour blind driver. If you end up crippled for life I'm sure it will be a great comfort to you that the driver was not denied the job because of his disability. Numpty or what?

I am not your mate. If you are suggesting that people with learning difficulties are incapable of doing a job, you are completely wrong. Bill Gates for instance, had Asperger Syndrome, are you saying that he was incapable of working? Colour blindness is not a learning disabilty; you stated learning disabilities. Can you tell us what it is you are saying?

Yes I can. People have different skills, that's a fact of life. It is people like you that stop people from finding their true callings by saying that they should be grouped in with the main stream of society. If someone has the need to create fictitious stories to explain their irrational behavior perhaps they should express them selves by writing fictional stories rather than being left in charge of the safety of railway users. If you have a problem with my logic perhaps you should start writing books.

People like me. Thats a very odd thing to say. I am just trying to find out what you are trying to say. So far all I have seen you do is conflate learning disabilities with physical disabilities. You dont know what difficulties Ian Faletto had because none of them were discussed in the non-existent case.

Logic? You dont have any.

I wondered what the fuss was about as Dukes Keep. Tried to take a short cut into town and had to ask Camera men/women to move off the pavement as they were blocking it.

One man was talking to himself in a huge Microphone, whilst trying to balance an aerial bless him!

Donald2000 wrote
Can I imagine that the railways would have employed someone with learning difficulties as a signalman? You have a hopelessly outdated view of disability, along with a number of others who write in the Echo. I mean, perish the thought that someone with other than a perfect mind or body should be employed by a railway operating company? Engage brain before writing...”

I say:-
It is you who need to engage your brain. You have no idea of what it takes to become a signalman. There are many exams to pass, and no-one who had a learning difficulty of the sort intimated would get that far. A photographic mind to enable one to quote the rulebook verbatim would get you through, but that doesn't mean you know what the rules mean, or the possible safety consequences of breaking them. If that is what you mean by Mr Falletto having a learning difficulty, then you are right, but it didn't make him a safe employee, either for the Railway or his work colleagues, or the travelling public.
The Railway has bent over backwards for him,probably because it became obvious that a mistake had been made by them. The man should have been sacked years ago when he first risked a major pileup by allowing two trains onto the same track at opposite ends.
I posted at the beginning of this whole debacle earlier in the year and said that there would be many people who would be left with egg on their face for supporting him. And I was right. I have worked with the man, and he is a danger to himself, his colleagues, and the travelling public.
As for Andy Locks comment about the RMT. What rot. Get off your high political horse. No Trade Union in their right mind would defend the indefensible. Mr Falletto's actions proved to be indefensible or the lawyer would not have recommended withdrawal. Without the ignorant, emotional, reaction by some people when Falletto was dismissed the case would not have got this far and wasted so much time and money.

At last someone on here talking sense!Vonnie is right in all that he says.Anyway the bottom line is he has no disibility.True,he is eccentric and a bit "odd" but as a ticket clerk he would be responsible for large sums of money and in charge of all the safety aspects that goes into running a station.
Knowing the man many years,and his obsession in being in the limelight, I guess that to win another station award was above safety.Apparently,he had been warned many times that he was not insured to be on the line.Yet,having all these warnings he still thought he was immune to rules.He was caught out by CCTV evidence when he lied as he would have known that he should have been informing the signaller.As there is a train every half hour they would have only have to go back 30 mins to retrieve the evidence.He has no option in his mind now but to stick to his original story.

This confirms the man is clearly off his trolley.

This confirms the man is clearly off his trolley.

I think the pompous and self-righteous tone of South West Trains says it all! They so quickly forget that they are a public service under private control. Regardless of what happened, their unjustified indignation simply dumps further coals on their head. Come on SW Trains, get with the real world and conduct a risk assessment on your attitiude!

Silktrophy wrote:
I think the pompous and self-righteous tone of South West Trains says it all! They so quickly forget that they are a public service under private control. Regardless of what happened, their unjustified indignation simply dumps further coals on their head. Come on SW Trains, get with the real world and conduct a risk assessment on your attitiude!

If you are right about something you can be forgiven for being self righteous especially when some lying fool has been trying to drag you through the courts. As to S W Trains being a public service what difference does that make? If you had spent the last year having to deal with the problems that this odious little man has caused due to his need to be noticed you would possibly be feeling a little self righteous at the moment.

Big Mac wrote:
This confirms the man is clearly off his trolley.

Yep, an "odd ball" clearly acting above his station as a manager when he was only a lowly ticket office clerk. I reckon someone blew the whistle over his fictitious story and the company were in their rights to haul him over the coals. No doubt he is now hoping to get "fast tracked" into another "jobs worth" post that comes with a uniform.

I remember asking him for a return ticket ... where too he said ? I replied, back here you doe-nut ......

BMWDellboy wrote:

Big Mac wrote:
This confirms the man is clearly off his trolley.

Yep, an "odd ball" clearly acting above his station as a manager when he was only a lowly ticket office clerk. I reckon someone blew the whistle over his fictitious story and the company were in their rights to haul him over the coals. No doubt he is now hoping to get "fast tracked" into another "jobs worth" post that comes with a uniform.

I remember asking him for a return ticket ... where too he said ? I replied, back here you doe-nut ......

We have missed your humor dellboy........hones
t lol.

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
I see sensible posts on this thread already including some from my friends who have some knowledge of the rail industry. This man seems to have had no friends or supporters among his own colleagues which tells of a hidden story here, and note especially the absence of the RMT - a union prepared to bring all its London Underground members out to defend RMT shop stewards when they have been in clear breach of rules, yet out here in the sticks TMT protection is nowhere to be seen. The RMT members in question were cocincidentally part of the RMT elite who being friends of Bob Crow enjoyhis total protection and behaved as if they knew it. Mr Faletto by contrast is an oddball and possibly a loner whose erratic behaviour ensured he would not enjoy similar support.
But unions are supposed to be about protecting the weakest from the power of the strongest? SWT RMT members - remember that next time Bob Crow is on TV trying to convince us and you that he is standing up for all his members. The reality is that the current RMT is just a vehicle for him to exercise his personal power like a medieval baron.

He not a member of the RMT Union Andy.
He might of or is a member to ASLEF seeing that he was a signalman or that other Rail Union that deals with Stations Clarks/Masters workforce or he may not off been in a Union at all.
The matter of the Underground, The reason why that Shopsteward sacking is because he defended his work force and had proved to many times that managerment was in the wrong to many times.

Silktrophy wrote:
I think the pompous and self-righteous tone of South West Trains says it all! They so quickly forget that they are a public service under private control. Regardless of what happened, their unjustified indignation simply dumps further coals on their head. Come on SW Trains, get with the real world and conduct a risk assessment on your attitiude!

Only a rumour but word is that there was a private pay off.

southy wrote:

Silktrophy wrote:
I think the pompous and self-righteous tone of South West Trains says it all! They so quickly forget that they are a public service under private control. Regardless of what happened, their unjustified indignation simply dumps further coals on their head. Come on SW Trains, get with the real world and conduct a risk assessment on your attitiude!

Only a rumour but word is that there was a private pay off.

Yeah, OK. We missed your humor as well southy.

southy wrote:

Silktrophy wrote:
I think the pompous and self-righteous tone of South West Trains says it all! They so quickly forget that they are a public service under private control. Regardless of what happened, their unjustified indignation simply dumps further coals on their head. Come on SW Trains, get with the real world and conduct a risk assessment on your attitiude!

Only a rumour but word is that there was a private pay off.

Indeed is it, which is why SWT stated categorically: "For the avoidance of doubt, we have made no payment to settle this case and nor have we ever considered doing so." If they had done so, and were pressed on the issue, no doubt they would have claimed that such matters were confidential, or some such...

Stephen J wrote:

southy wrote:

Silktrophy wrote:
I think the pompous and self-righteous tone of South West Trains says it all! They so quickly forget that they are a public service under private control. Regardless of what happened, their unjustified indignation simply dumps further coals on their head. Come on SW Trains, get with the real world and conduct a risk assessment on your attitiude!

Only a rumour but word is that there was a private pay off.

Indeed is it, which is why SWT stated categorically: "For the avoidance of doubt, we have made no payment to settle this case and nor have we ever considered doing so." If they had done so, and were pressed on the issue, no doubt they would have claimed that such matters were confidential, or some such...

Careful now. We don't want to stop southy's conspiracy theory from developing just yet. I'm sure we could all do with the laugh.

Stillness wrote:

Stephen J wrote:

southy wrote:

Silktrophy wrote:
I think the pompous and self-righteous tone of South West Trains says it all! They so quickly forget that they are a public service under private control. Regardless of what happened, their unjustified indignation simply dumps further coals on their head. Come on SW Trains, get with the real world and conduct a risk assessment on your attitiude!

Only a rumour but word is that there was a private pay off.

Indeed is it, which is why SWT stated categorically: "For the avoidance of doubt, we have made no payment to settle this case and nor have we ever considered doing so." If they had done so, and were pressed on the issue, no doubt they would have claimed that such matters were confidential, or some such...

Careful now. We don't want to stop southy's conspiracy theory from developing just yet. I'm sure we could all do with the laugh.

It would not be the first time a company has said one thing and done the opposite.
Vesta on the island comes to mind on there redundanicy pay off, it cost a lot more than they said.

southy wrote:

Stillness wrote:

Stephen J wrote:

southy wrote:

Silktrophy wrote:
I think the pompous and self-righteous tone of South West Trains says it all! They so quickly forget that they are a public service under private control. Regardless of what happened, their unjustified indignation simply dumps further coals on their head. Come on SW Trains, get with the real world and conduct a risk assessment on your attitiude!

Only a rumour but word is that there was a private pay off.

Indeed is it, which is why SWT stated categorically: "For the avoidance of doubt, we have made no payment to settle this case and nor have we ever considered doing so." If they had done so, and were pressed on the issue, no doubt they would have claimed that such matters were confidential, or some such...

Careful now. We don't want to stop southy's conspiracy theory from developing just yet. I'm sure we could all do with the laugh.

It would not be the first time a company has said one thing and done the opposite.
Vesta on the island comes to mind on there redundanicy pay off, it cost a lot more than they said.

You wind him up and off he goes.

AT LAST!! South West Trains finally give me something to smile about after being found fully justified in correctly sacking this mindless, selfish, lying pr1ck. I said at the time he was a fraud. Congratulations to everyone who signed a petition supporting this idiot without being in possession of a single fact - I hope none of you are EVER called to do jury service.

I await now the official report concluding how Flt Lt Egging came to park a publically owned plane ar5e end up in a Bournemouth sewer

BMWDellboy wrote:

Big Mac wrote: This confirms the man is clearly off his trolley.

Yep, an "odd ball" clearly acting above his station as a manager when he was only a lowly ticket office clerk. I reckon someone blew the whistle over his fictitious story and the company were in their rights to haul him over the coals. No doubt he is now hoping to get "fast tracked" into another "jobs worth" post that comes with a uniform. I remember asking him for a return ticket ... where too he said ? I replied, back here you doe-nut ......

An "oddball"? I don't think so. Just look at the picture of him, carefully chosen by the Echo to accompany this article.

Stillness wrote:

southy wrote:

Stillness wrote:

Stephen J wrote:

southy wrote:

Silktrophy wrote:
I think the pompous and self-righteous tone of South West Trains says it all! They so quickly forget that they are a public service under private control. Regardless of what happened, their unjustified indignation simply dumps further coals on their head. Come on SW Trains, get with the real world and conduct a risk assessment on your attitiude!

Only a rumour but word is that there was a private pay off.

Indeed is it, which is why SWT stated categorically: "For the avoidance of doubt, we have made no payment to settle this case and nor have we ever considered doing so." If they had done so, and were pressed on the issue, no doubt they would have claimed that such matters were confidential, or some such...

Careful now. We don't want to stop southy's conspiracy theory from developing just yet. I'm sure we could all do with the laugh.

It would not be the first time a company has said one thing and done the opposite.
Vesta on the island comes to mind on there redundanicy pay off, it cost a lot more than they said.

You wind him up and off he goes.

Poor old thing never lets facts cloud his opinion of a situation.

Here's the truth about their CCTV...

They took me to Court (and lost) and cited CCTV evidence of what I did. Trouble was they then claimed in Court to have erased it. I had my own copy, obtained from them (without their knowledge) and presented it. It proved they had lied to the Court. The Echo refused to run the story.

southy wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
I see sensible posts on this thread already including some from my friends who have some knowledge of the rail industry. This man seems to have had no friends or supporters among his own colleagues which tells of a hidden story here, and note especially the absence of the RMT - a union prepared to bring all its London Underground members out to defend RMT shop stewards when they have been in clear breach of rules, yet out here in the sticks TMT protection is nowhere to be seen. The RMT members in question were cocincidentally part of the RMT elite who being friends of Bob Crow enjoyhis total protection and behaved as if they knew it. Mr Faletto by contrast is an oddball and possibly a loner whose erratic behaviour ensured he would not enjoy similar support.
But unions are supposed to be about protecting the weakest from the power of the strongest? SWT RMT members - remember that next time Bob Crow is on TV trying to convince us and you that he is standing up for all his members. The reality is that the current RMT is just a vehicle for him to exercise his personal power like a medieval baron.

He not a member of the RMT Union Andy.
He might of or is a member to ASLEF seeing that he was a signalman or that other Rail Union that deals with Stations Clarks/Masters workforce or he may not off been in a Union at all.
The matter of the Underground, The reason why that Shopsteward sacking is because he defended his work force and had proved to many times that managerment was in the wrong to many times.

About the only accurate part of that is That Ian may not have been in a Union at all.
It is over 40 years since I was a member of any kind of trade union but I understand who represents whom on the Railways.
RMT - The Old National Union of Railwaymen with added Seamen. -
Represents all branches of ordinary Railwaymen - Guards (or conductors), Platform staff, Signalmen, track workers cleaners etc.
ASLEF - Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen. -
I don't see any mention of signallers there, just people who drive trains.
TSSA - Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association. -
That's the folk who put on suits and work in proper offices, they don't sweep the platforms in their spare moments.
.
.
When it comes to the spurious rumour about a so called pay-off; As I said earlier it is a shame that the evidence was not made public so that people could see that such a concept was both unlikely and unnecessary.
It is probably in the interests of, and benefit to, Ian Faletto that the evidence is not made public - It may harm his future employment prospects, for which SWT may be held liable under human rights legislation.

southy wrote:

Stillness wrote:

Stephen J wrote:

southy wrote:

Silktrophy wrote:
I think the pompous and self-righteous tone of South West Trains says it all! They so quickly forget that they are a public service under private control. Regardless of what happened, their unjustified indignation simply dumps further coals on their head. Come on SW Trains, get with the real world and conduct a risk assessment on your attitiude!

Only a rumour but word is that there was a private pay off.

Indeed is it, which is why SWT stated categorically: "For the avoidance of doubt, we have made no payment to settle this case and nor have we ever considered doing so." If they had done so, and were pressed on the issue, no doubt they would have claimed that such matters were confidential, or some such...

Careful now. We don't want to stop southy's conspiracy theory from developing just yet. I'm sure we could all do with the laugh.

It would not be the first time a company has said one thing and done the opposite.
Vesta on the island comes to mind on there redundanicy pay off, it cost a lot more than they said.

Irrelevant.

Looks like you didn't do your research.

southy wrote:

Stillness wrote:

Stephen J wrote:

southy wrote:

Silktrophy wrote:
I think the pompous and self-righteous tone of South West Trains says it all! They so quickly forget that they are a public service under private control. Regardless of what happened, their unjustified indignation simply dumps further coals on their head. Come on SW Trains, get with the real world and conduct a risk assessment on your attitiude!

Only a rumour but word is that there was a private pay off.

Indeed is it, which is why SWT stated categorically: "For the avoidance of doubt, we have made no payment to settle this case and nor have we ever considered doing so." If they had done so, and were pressed on the issue, no doubt they would have claimed that such matters were confidential, or some such...

Careful now. We don't want to stop southy's conspiracy theory from developing just yet. I'm sure we could all do with the laugh.

It would not be the first time a company has said one thing and done the opposite.
Vesta on the island comes to mind on there redundanicy pay off, it cost a lot more than they said.

Irrelevant.

Looks like you didn't do your research.

X Old Bill wrote:

southy wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
I see sensible posts on this thread already including some from my friends who have some knowledge of the rail industry. This man seems to have had no friends or supporters among his own colleagues which tells of a hidden story here, and note especially the absence of the RMT - a union prepared to bring all its London Underground members out to defend RMT shop stewards when they have been in clear breach of rules, yet out here in the sticks TMT protection is nowhere to be seen. The RMT members in question were cocincidentally part of the RMT elite who being friends of Bob Crow enjoyhis total protection and behaved as if they knew it. Mr Faletto by contrast is an oddball and possibly a loner whose erratic behaviour ensured he would not enjoy similar support.
But unions are supposed to be about protecting the weakest from the power of the strongest? SWT RMT members - remember that next time Bob Crow is on TV trying to convince us and you that he is standing up for all his members. The reality is that the current RMT is just a vehicle for him to exercise his personal power like a medieval baron.

He not a member of the RMT Union Andy.
He might of or is a member to ASLEF seeing that he was a signalman or that other Rail Union that deals with Stations Clarks/Masters workforce or he may not off been in a Union at all.
The matter of the Underground, The reason why that Shopsteward sacking is because he defended his work force and had proved to many times that managerment was in the wrong to many times.

About the only accurate part of that is That Ian may not have been in a Union at all.
It is over 40 years since I was a member of any kind of trade union but I understand who represents whom on the Railways.
RMT - The Old National Union of Railwaymen with added Seamen. -
Represents all branches of ordinary Railwaymen - Guards (or conductors), Platform staff, Signalmen, track workers cleaners etc.
ASLEF - Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen. -
I don't see any mention of signallers there, just people who drive trains.
TSSA - Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association. -
That's the folk who put on suits and work in proper offices, they don't sweep the platforms in their spare moments.
.
.
When it comes to the spurious rumour about a so called pay-off; As I said earlier it is a shame that the evidence was not made public so that people could see that such a concept was both unlikely and unnecessary.
It is probably in the interests of, and benefit to, Ian Faletto that the evidence is not made public - It may harm his future employment prospects, for which SWT may be held liable under human rights legislation.

Why Oh Why do you lot always think there is a conspiracy going on ? The guy, although probably quite harmless, is an out and out dreamer and some of you lot need to wake up as well .... sidetracked or what.

Shoong wrote:

southy wrote:

Stillness wrote:

Stephen J wrote:

southy wrote:

Silktrophy wrote:
I think the pompous and self-righteous tone of South West Trains says it all! They so quickly forget that they are a public service under private control. Regardless of what happened, their unjustified indignation simply dumps further coals on their head. Come on SW Trains, get with the real world and conduct a risk assessment on your attitiude!

Only a rumour but word is that there was a private pay off.

Indeed is it, which is why SWT stated categorically: "For the avoidance of doubt, we have made no payment to settle this case and nor have we ever considered doing so." If they had done so, and were pressed on the issue, no doubt they would have claimed that such matters were confidential, or some such...

Careful now. We don't want to stop southy's conspiracy theory from developing just yet. I'm sure we could all do with the laugh.

It would not be the first time a company has said one thing and done the opposite.
Vesta on the island comes to mind on there redundanicy pay off, it cost a lot more than they said.

Irrelevant.

Looks like you didn't do your research.

Why Oh Why do you lot always think there is a conspiracy going on ? The guy, although probably quite harmless, is an out and out dreamer and some of you lot need to wake up as well .... sidetracked or what.

To: BMWDellboy,
I do not for a moment believe that there is any form of conspiracy, and I have reasons for those views based on facts.
Unfortunately, because any evidence, of any sort, will not be published there are people who will read into it anything which happens to suit their own opinions, regardless of any official statements to the contrary.
I think an open hearing would have killed the whole issue stone dead in everyone's mind - apart from Southy that is.

ToastyTea wrote:
Looks like network rail mafia have got to him, such a shame. No match for guys with guns though.

Which would be true if Network Rail had been involved, but all they would have had to do was provide the recording of the telephone call Mr Faletto allegedly made to the signaller.....

It was the end of the line for him when SWT signalled what evidence they had against him. His solicitor, Mr Pullman, was not very chuffed to say the least and gave him a red light before alighting to the nearest bar to get steamed up.
Anyone who believes there has been a miscarriage of justice is not the full ticket and needs to get back on track or get off at the next stop.

It was the end of the line for him when SWT signalled what evidence they had against him. His solicitor, Mr Pullman, was not very chuffed to say the least and gave him a red light before alighting to the nearest bar to get steamed up.
Anyone who believes there has been a miscarriage of justice is not the full ticket and needs to get back on track or get off at the next stop.

BMWDellboy wrote:
It was the end of the line for him when SWT signalled what evidence they had against him. His solicitor, Mr Pullman, was not very chuffed to say the least and gave him a red light before alighting to the nearest bar to get steamed up.
Anyone who believes there has been a miscarriage of justice is not the full ticket and needs to get back on track or get off at the next stop.

Nice one, but you didn't mention the bit about his case being de-railed.....
.
I wonder why the Bournemouth Echo are not allowing comments on this story, no, better not start down that line.

X Old Bill wrote:

BMWDellboy wrote:
It was the end of the line for him when SWT signalled what evidence they had against him. His solicitor, Mr Pullman, was not very chuffed to say the least and gave him a red light before alighting to the nearest bar to get steamed up.
Anyone who believes there has been a miscarriage of justice is not the full ticket and needs to get back on track or get off at the next stop.

Nice one, but you didn't mention the bit about his case being de-railed.....
.
I wonder why the Bournemouth Echo are not allowing comments on this story, no, better not start down that line.

Good point, because they didn't bother to track the case as closely as the Soton Ohec they haven't gauged what sort of response the story would get ... tunnel visioned ?