I suspect that the driver in question is now a former driver.
Good grief, nine previous convictions (including smashing up a pub TV because he disagreed with a VAR decision) but his lawyer thinks that he has learned his lesson this time?
I didn't see that. I am wondering if there are mental health issues? Although the behaviour does sound like straightfoward blokey toxic masculinity, and if we start locking all those cases up (which I'd support), there wouldn't be enough jail places. And many of the police would have to be confined, too, which would complicate matters. I had to look up what a 'VAR decision' is; it seems to be something to do with soccer.
You get parents of schoolkids going on the pitch and assaulting the actual referee because he (or she!) made a decision that they didn't like; perhaps because it went against their little diddums. My brother-in-law has given up refereeing under 12s mostly because of the parents.
Like I said, maybe he's 'got the mental health', as I think we say nowadays?
Was VAR actually being used back then? I see he played the mental health card as well.
Nine previous convictions?? The fact that someone with so many previous convictions was a driver to begin with suggests there may be issues with GTR’s vetting process. Surely no TOC would knowingly employ someone as a driver with a background like that?
It doesn't say that he hasn't been disciplined, but the employer may have felt that disciplinary processes should be put on hold pending the legal proceedings.
No, that's the passenger who assaulted a female guard, who I linked to in a reply as an example of the opposite type of offence (passenger against staff).
For the England Premier League, VAR was introduced for the 2019-2020 season; he was convicted in relation to the smashed TV in May 2019.
Yes, indeed. I wrote that he was said to be suspended in reply to the OP's suspicion that he was now a 'former driver'. I believe that voyeurism has a long history on the railway - wasn't there a story about an LBSCR motorman suspected of wedging his controller so he could clamber along the footboards and spy on a courting couple in one of the compartments, and coming to grief in Crystal Palace tunnel?
Clearly they did employ him
No, they didn't. The nine previous convictions refers to a member of the public who assaulted a member of railway staff in Manchester, not the upskirting driver.
Ah that makes more sense.
Lying about, or omitting to mention unspent criminal convictions on a job application can be a crime (fraud by false representation), as can falsely claiming to have qualifications or experience, or 'massaging' a CV. But that is not relevant to the train driver whose case started this thread.
There was certainly a case of a driver spying on a courting couple on the old Newcastle electric units in the early 1900s
It was very common on Mk 1 DMUs. The drop down blinds in the cab separating the cab from the first row of passenger seats always had slits cut in them low down at seated knee level.
Such a profound lack of judgement and attitude towards safety is appalling. If this really happened, the driver must have disabled some kind of driver safety device.
Is this the incident you're thinking of - there was a thread (with links to the accident report) here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/help-finding-details-of-an-unusual-collision.167803/
With respect, although the investigating police office refers to him being in a position of trust, I cannot see that it is a relevant factor: the victim was asleep, so the driver's uniform made no difference to their ability to upskirt her.
With respect, he was wearing his employer's uniform; he had a duty not to do anything to disgrace it, whether anyone saw him or not.
I agree, and that is an obvious ground for a gross misconduct hearing. But he did not use his status to take advantage - which is what "position of trust" is about.
I think there is an implied duty to act in the best interests of passengers, which could be considered as a position of trust.
I wonder if a police officer who shares pictures of murdered corpses with colleagues is guilty of abusing a position of trust (and if the colleagues are if they don't report it), whether or not anyone was upset by them. I guess it's misconduct in public office anyway.
When it happened it led to disciplinary action, so it was clearly considered to be misconduct. I'm not sure what it's got to do with train drivers though.
