Since my last blog on this subject I’ve maintained a silence on the matter, just as Joanne herself did. Until Mike Kelly, the Chair of the East Lancs Railway published an ‘open letter’ to volunteers, clearly knowing such a letter would travel much further and much wider – as it did with copies of it appearing on various rail forums. Despite this, I maintained my silence until Joanne chose to respond several days later – as the first comments should be hers. So, to start with, here’s a copy of Kelly’s ‘open letter’ and Joanne’s response.
Kelly’s ‘open letter’;
“11 May 2023
To staff and volunteers
The ELR have recently concluded an appeals process with Joanne Crompton. As part of this, Joanne had requested that her volunteer status be reinstated. Joanne had her volunteer status revoked because of the content of her social media posts and interactions during the investigation into her grievances and not the grievances she raised – these are unrelated events.
While Joanne may only have occasionally mentioned East Lancashire Railway directly on social media, during the appeal process all of her posts and social media interactions were reviewed in the context of what was taking place at that time and the influence and reach Joanne has on social media. Additional consideration was given to the posts Joanne made and engaged with after the investigation had concluded and in the lead up to the appeal. The interviews criticising the ELR that she gave to the national and heritage railway press were also taken into consideration.
The investigating officer concluded that her posts and social media engagements repeatedly brought the railway into disrepute, and significantly breached the ELR’s social media policy.
All of our volunteers have the right to enjoy a safe, welcoming and rewarding experience when working at the railway. This very public situation has led to a complete breakdown in the working relationship between Joanne, some of her fellow volunteers, and the management of the railway. As a result, Joanne’s volunteer status will not be returned.
Also, as part of the appeal, the investigating officer upheld the sexual harassment complaint and appropriate procedures will now follow and action taken in that regard.
Sexual harassment at East Lancashire Railway, or indeed in any environment, is unacceptable and we understand the emotional toll this takes on all individuals involved.
We strive to learn from all such experiences and will commission a full review, led by an independent HR expert, into our working environments, teams and culture. This is to ensure our staff and volunteers have the confidence and trust in our many safeguarding policies and procedures and that they are fit for purpose. If required, we will look at additional training and development as we go forward to meet the high standards that we set for ourselves.
The appeals process prevented us from saying very much and I apologise to those people who contacted me, but it was important that our grievance procedures were allowed to reach a conclusion.
Joanne made a positive contribution to the ELR in her time with us and we wish her well in all her future endeavours.
Keep the Faith.“
Here’s Joanne’s response, which can be found on her Facebook page, and Twitter;
“17 May 2023
On 11th May 2023, the Chair of the East Lancashire Railway (“ELR”), Mr. Mike Kelly, chose to make a public statement by way of an open letter to all staff and volunteers of the ELR in respect of me that included details of my ELR grievance complaint and subsequent appeal. This is despite the ELR’s own Grievance Policy making it clear that ‘Grievances will be handled with as high a degree of confidentiality as is practicable’.
Prior to this, at no point had Mr. Kelly or anyone connected with the management of the ELR discussed with me whether it was appropriate to publish such an open letter in contravention with their Grievance Policy nor what the likely impact of publishing this would have on me personally. As a result, I feel it necessary to make a statement setting out what has actually happened and what I believe must happen next.
Over the past few months, I have been involved in a grievance process with the ELR, initiated by me, regarding two separate issues – first, my mistreatment with respect to various matters relating to my driver training and second, the sexual harassment I had been subjected to over a sustained period of time. With regards to driver training, the ELR’s own review upheld my grievance and with regards to sexual harassment, my grievance was upheld on appeal. The fact that the original investigation by the ELR had concluded that the grievance with regards to sexual harassment was inconclusive had significantly exacerbated the emotional toil this was all taking on me, so for the appeal to subsequently find in my favour was an enormous relief.
On 4th April 2023, immediately following a meeting called by the ELR to explain the outcome of my original grievances (and prior to my subsequent appeal), the ELR General Manager told me that my volunteer status was being revoked due to my activity on social media. It was claimed this had brought the ELR into disrepute. No notice was given of this decision and no opportunity was afforded me to consider the allegations in advance of the decision to revoke my volunteer status.
It is true that I have been an active and vocal contributor to various social media platforms over the years. At all times I have sought to be enthusiastic and positive, not just with respect to the ELR specifically, but also with the heritage railway movement more generally. I am passionate about volunteering, especially with regards to encouraging more women to get involved in what is a wonderfully uplifting and rewarding activity. I reject categorically that at any time have I deliberately sought to bring the ELR into disrepute and believe that the revoking of my volunteer status was entirely unjust, ill-considered, and wholly disproportionate.
It is the ELR’s own actions that have risked damaging my reputation. Elements of the process of grievance, the initial findings and subsequent appeal have been defective, with the ELR’s own investigating officer using social media themselves to express personal opinions and disclose matters concerning the investigation that I believe should have remained confidential whilst a grievance and subsequent appeal process was still underway.
The actual events underpinning my experience of sexual harassment are very upsetting, to the extent that I find it difficult to talk about them even now. It is also well known that I am receiving treatment for a rare and particularly nasty form of cancer but despite that I have never sought to use that fact to leverage my position at any time with the ELR. Even so, the stress that recent events have brought about on my health, as well as on my wonderfully loving and supportive family has, at times, been almost intolerable.
It was therefore especially upsetting when reading Mr. Kelly’s statement to note that four full paragraphs are dedicated to first attempting to explain the reasons behind my volunteer status being revoked before even mentioning the issue of sexual harassment. Readers will form their own view as to the sense of priorities that the ELR place on protecting their own reputation compared to supporting members of their own staff and volunteer groups.
In particular, the open letter says that “All of our volunteers have a right to enjoy a safe, welcoming and rewarding experience” followed immediately with “This very public situation has led to a complete breakdown in the working relationship between Joanne, some of her fellow volunteers and the management of the railway”. This juxtaposition misleads the reader into believing that my social media posts, possibly the grievances themselves, and certainly my general behaviour, have led to volunteers feeling unsafe and unwelcome. Such a connection is deeply misleading and entirely unsupported by any reasonable and fair consideration of the facts.
Mr. Kelly’s open letter ends by exhorting all staff and volunteers to ‘Keep the Faith’. The inference of this is that it is the ELR who has been the victim here, bravely managing to see off an attempt by a former volunteer to cause it reputational harm.
I see recent events in a rather different light. Over the last 18 months, I have been subjected to frequent bullying, casual (and not so casual) misogyny, gaslighting and sexual harassment that left me sufficiently scared at times to feel unable to travel to and from the railway unaccompanied. I am grateful to the friends I have who are still connected with the ELR and who have told me privately how upset they were with those three, short words: ‘Keep the faith’.
The ELR has so many dedicated staff and volunteers who do a truly wonderful job. They do what they do with passion and enthusiasm not just for their own railway but for the heritage railway movement at large. Yet they are still entitled to be respected and protected by those in authority. They should expect their concerns to be taken seriously when they are raised, as well as acted upon, urgently, when the possibility of wrongdoing comes to light.
My concern now, as it has been for some time, is to bring about real and positive change for the benefit of all. I am therefore calling upon the Board of the ELR to announce the following 4 – point plan as soon as possible:
1. To commission an urgent and completely independent review into the culture & working practices at the ELR (as well as their HR Policies and Procedures) including in particular how arrangements for all potentially vulnerable groups, not just women, are considered and put in place;
2. To then publish the terms of reference of the review;
3. To confirm the review will be carried out by someone with experience of carrying out similar reviews elsewhere; and
4. To confirm that the outcome of the review will be published when complete and that any recommendations made will be implemented in full and without amendment.
Only then can everyone be certain that the Board of the ELR take their duties and responsibilities to their staff and volunteers seriously, and that what happened to me does not happen again.”
Statement from Joanne Crompton re East Lancashire Railway.
I’ll let Jo’s words speak for her but offer a few observations of my own. The ELR management have been appalling in the way they’ve dealt with this issue. Their tactic seems to have been to ignore it and hope it would go away – despite the car-crash of Kelly’s initial (unbelievable) statements and excuses for his blocking of people on social media. His excuse has never stood up to scrutiny but he’s never apologised, nor has he ever dealt to this day with the fact his actions have brought the ELR into far more disrepute than a volunteer quite rightly complaining about sexual harassment. Jo’s point about the fact most of Kelly’s letter is an apologia for the way they’ve ignored their own procedures whilst only at the end admitting her complaint was upheld (but still ‘banning’ her) is well made. Talk about getting things arse about face! Meanwhile, what’s happened to the person who was doing the sexual harassing? What sanctions have they faced? No-one knows…
In the time it’s taken Kelly to come up with this latest excuse the reputation of the ELR has taken a hammering – both on rail forums, social media and in the mainstream press where the reactions have been overwhelming negative to the ELR. It’s got so bad the ELR has had to lock comments on some of its social media posts as the responses have been so negative. I feel for the ELR volunteers caught up in this as it seems clear the ELR management see them as pawns to be exploited.
As for the ‘independence’ of the policy review – how transparent is this going to be? As I understand matters the last ‘independent’ review into Jo’s disciplinary was conducted by someone employed by the ELR.
When I read Kelly’s closing ‘keep the faith’ comment I couldn’t quite believe he’d say something so crass, but then I remembered his excuses for his mass-blocking of people on social media! Sadly, I can’t see anything likely to change at the ELR under its present management. There seems to be an ingrained culture here which is going to be hard to shift unless people – volunteers, visitors and loco owning groups – start voting with their feet.
Last night Joanne was at the important ‘Women in Rail‘ awards in Derby where she was one of eight people out of 100 who were shortlisted for this prestigious awards. Jo didn’t win, but to get to the final 8 is an accolade in itself and a reflection of how she’s seen in both the preservation movement and also the wider rail industry. Somehow I can’t see the ELR being up for any awards soon – unless it’s the raspberry’s…
I’ve a small favour to ask…
If you enjoy reading this or any of the other blogs I’ve written, please click on an advert or two. You don’t have to buy anything you don’t want to of course – although if you did find something that tickled your fancy that would be fab! – but the revenue from them helps me to cover some of the cost of maintaining this site (which isn’t cheap and comes out of my own pocket). Remember, 99% of the pictures used in my blogs can be purchased as prints from my other website – https://paulbigland.zenfolio.com/
Or – you can now buy me a coffee! https://ko-fi.com/paulbigland68312
Thank you!
Paul Bigland 
Surely Joanne would have received a personal letter before this ‘open’ letter to the other volunteers?
A fantastic write up. We all stand behind Joanne because we know she has been severely let down time and again by mismanagement at the ELR.
Quite. It’s appalling that the first Joanne knew of this was this ‘open’ letter. I can’t believe that they hadn’t written to her personally. I think this point needs to be investigated- Paul you need to be on this
Exactly. It’s utterly disgusting that Joanne found out about the appeal results from this open letter. She should have had a personal letter well before this was made public. Paul you have to investigate this matter
She certainly would have had the results of the appeal in a private letter. I think we’d all be interested in its contents.
Hello Paul,
I am new to responding to blogs, so please be patient with me. You seem to have Ms Crompton’s ear, so maybe you can help me with a few things.
I have followed this story, and Ms Crompton, for some time and I am really underwhelmed. There has been a lot of finger-pointing and very little evidence regarding this matter. She has said she would ‘not put up & shut up’ (sic), and has done neither; there has been no real evidence posted by her, yet she continues her targeted assertions. She has also said she has been called a ‘liar’ and she will expose the truth, but we have had just more of the same assertions. I am unconvinced, and here’s why.
1. The only ‘evidence’ was posted by a journalist, a vague reference to a text message, and to be honest, as a woman, I can see a very different, and much more logical, possible interpretation. Where are Ms Crompton’s responses to these texts? You know, the ones that say, ‘Thanks, but no thanks. Don’t ever text me anything like this again or I go to the Police’? Have we seen these? No. She makes a post which is undoubtedly shocking and then nothing except comments from her followers, with little from her (even though she has also said she wants to move on).
2. She alleges total fear stretching over several months, but that doesn’t appear to be reflected in either her posts online or her very professionally crafted photos. She looks happy, relaxed and thoroughly comfortable, in total contrast to someone who was scared to go out alone. Is she then a very talented actor who can hide her true feelings, battling through the experience she describes?
3. Apart from the official responses, no one, absolutely no one from the East Lancashire Railway has said anything about this, not even the female volunteers there. What normally happens is one brave soul puts their head on the block and several others say, “Oh, that happened to me, too”, but no, nothing. The local press and most of the nationals have ignored it. There has been little in the railway press as well. Do they know something we don’t? And if so, what is it?
4. Keep the faith. Really? A quick Google of Mr Kelly and you will find that this is his ‘slogan’ – if you can call it that. Or maybe
he’s a big fan of Northern Soul? Maybe the East Lancashire Railway is a hotbed of Northern Soul? It is used by others with no complaint – eg. Bon Jovi, Black and multi-ethnic Christians. It means to remain optimistic when faced with challenges – which is precisely the situation his volunteers and staff face. I can’t see that this is in any way ‘vacuous’, ‘coarse’ or even ‘insensitive’ (synonyms for ‘crass’).
What exactly does Ms Crompton want? Her complaints were upheld, she has had an apology, she is at another railway where she seems welcome, her posts suggest she is doing what she wants to do.
There does seem to be another issue under all this – the repeated targeting of the East Lancashire Railway, Mr Kelly, and especially, the female General Manager – whose achievements within the railway world far outstrip Ms Crompton’s. I read with interest, for example, Ms Crompton’s objection to the GM being voted onto the board of the Heritage Railway Association in a post which did look to the unbiased observer (I am not a member of any railway associated society) as an attempt to interfere in the democratic process and a bit of ‘Mean Girl’ jealousy. Not a good look, if you want to be taken seriously as a female in what has traditionally been a man’s world.
And finally, something which has bothered me for a while and I’m sure you can help to explain this. I saw a brief and cryptic post online which asked what ‘really happened’ at West Coast Railways and Ribble Steam Railway, which was never answered. Has something like this happened before, and if so, why target the East Lancashire Railway exclusively?
Paul, here is the point of my reply; I said I was unconvinced. If you can provide the real evidence and the answers to the above questions, I would be happy to get on board and share the journey by supporting Ms Crompton, but, to continue the metaphor, at the moment, I am still on the platform, waving at the trains.
I feel as though you’ve got something personal against Joanne, Chantal, based on your rather vitriolic and victim-blaming comments. The fact is that Joanne’s discrimination complaint and her sexual harassment complaint have been upheld by the East Lancashire Railway, so there can be no dispute that sufficient evidence of both were presented. Sharing the messages would no doubt identify the guilty party (which I’d personally be fine with, as it would cost him dearly, and rightly so!), which may explain why neither side has sought to do so?
To my knowledge, Joanne had not said either way whether she has had a personal written response from the ELR about her appeal – if she has, it’s ‘personal’, as you say, so why should she share it? She has responded to an open letter that was sent to the railway’s staff and volunteers and to the railway press – something that she highlights breaches the ELR’s own procedures and ethics – and what she says is that she was not told that this was going to happen.
As for others not speaking up – why would they, when they see the shocking way that Joanne has been treated? It wouldn’t surprise me if they feel as if they would end up being dismissed as well, for some made-up infraction of the rules, if they dared to complain. Judging by the number of unfilled turns on the ELR’s steam crew roster for next month (28%), some people are voting with their feet already…
As for Paul being biased, that may or may not be, but unbiased stories have already appeared in the railway press that make the ELR look equally bad. There’s only so much anyone can do if the chairman and general manager are determined to keep digging themselves into an ever deepening hole!
Emma
Surely the point is that Joanne made out that the open letter didn’t have an apology to her, which should there be one , would be in the letter to her?
As for her discrimination complaint, that’s not what it was, was it? She says unfair treatment and the ELR says it was found to be poor practice.
I agree that publishing the texts could name the subject, but she’s already gone public via Nigel Harris with one of them. She should publish them and her responses, the names ( if shown) can be blacked out.
Paul does seem very biased, I hadn’t thought that until I saw Chantal’s posts. She definitely changed my view, her comments are so well presented. They paint a very different potential picture and she has been very detailed, I found her posts to be excellently written and very helpful. I didn’t see her as biased against Joanne, just far more thought through on the subject. I’d suggest that you are biased.
As for around a 1/4 of the turns for next month not yet being covered that’s kinda bad, but what was the situation same time last year and what are other railways experiencing?
Adam
“A very different potential picture”. In other words, pure speculation based on no knowledge or involvement in what happened whatsoever. Ms Crompton (nor anyone else) is under no obligation to publish anything, least of all private or confidential correspondence in response to such speculation. People will make up their own minds on this. It’s clear many already have as the actions of the ELR management have been poor to say the least. And, as I’ve said before, we still have no rational explanation for Kelly’s mass blocking of people on Twitter – just a series of unbelievable excuses.
Emma
What policies of the ELR did the open letter break, can you give us the was I’m still not sure of how this is playing out
Adam
Hello Emma,
Could you kindly point out where I have been ‘vitriolic and victim-blaming’? I said I was unconvinced, not that Ms Crompton was unconvincing – it’s not the same thing – and my reasons were (still are) 1. Her account contains assertions with very little evidence (evidence is not the same as detail) to support these, 2. it raises even more questions, and 3. people are making very cryptic comments in relation to this, which leads to innuendo and speculation. As Paul has said, we are free to make up our own minds and if the lack of supporting evidence is the issue for many, so be it. They (and I) are entitled to voice our opinions. I stand by mine and am happy to be criticised for it as long as that criticism is based on evidence and not assertion, hence my opening request for specific examples. I did say I would be happy to support Ms Crompton so your response is puzzling and not really doing her cause any favours.
Regarding the ‘open letter’ – this is not an unreasonable move since it eliminates much rumour-mongering and unfounded gossip. It was addressed to the volunteers and staff but somehow ended up in open forums. As for ‘the railway press’, can you tell us which publication and which journalist covered this? As Paul has indicated, this was most likely ‘leaked’. Are you saying that the East Lancashire Railway staff or Mr Kelly did this and do you have evidence of such? And surely, ‘unbiased’ stories that ‘make the railway look bad’ aren’t actually ‘unbiased’, are they? You also seem to think he has to have Ms Crompton’s permission to write such a letter? If so, shouldn’t he have had advance warning of all of her posts on Twitter? Sauce for the goose and all that.
Emma, you are obviously connected with this railway as you have access to the confidential (I assume) rosters which you have just posted about, and therefore one of the first people to have received this letter. Maybe you could provide us with the social media policy which has brought about Joanne’s departure?
Regarding the turns on the rosters, Adam has already raised an excellent point about seasonal variations and patterns. Given that we are approaching the peak holiday season, it is no surprise that turns are unfilled as yet. I would imagine that things operate very much as they do in other rostered industries, with people waiting to see what turns are needed closer to the date.
As for others not speaking up, actually, they do. Frequently. Safety in numbers. It’s called in legal circles, ‘a class action’. The notion of other women at the railway cowering in corners, terrified to speak up, then working on a locomotive footplate with burly blokes is, frankly, laughable and relies on out-dated stereotypes of men and women. Ms Crompton repeatedly says she is ’empowering’ these women and speaking up for them. If they are still so frightened to speak out, then she isn’t doing a very good job, is she? And of course, there is the old chestnut. They are volunteers and have the ultimate worker’s right; they can pack up and go somewhere else without giving a second’s notice of intent to do that, or even a reason. They can walk at any time. So why don’t they?
I will deal with your next point, (the ‘made up infraction’), in a separate post but without those pesky details of what the ‘rules’ are, we are unclear on this point.
Absolutely agree with this. I can’t believe this either. There must be an official outcome to the appeal – I thought the outcomes had to be in writing, and she had a union rep with her so surely that would have been followed up by him if it hadn’t happened?
Her posts say she had an ASLEF rep with her at the appeal. I can’t believe they haven’t posted anything either
I concur. A union representative would have undoubtedly questioned the absence of a written outcome, so we must assume that a private letter regarding the outcome has indeed been sent and not shared for some reason. Therefore, criticism of the handling of this part of the saga seems unfounded. If people don’t like the way things have been handled, that doesn’t make it wrong or inept; it’s just ‘what I didn’t like’ or ‘I think it should have been done differently’. To be honest, I was surprised Ms Crompton was granted an appeal, as volunteers are not legally entitled to one, as I understand it.
Privacy seems to be the logical reason for the non-sharing of the appeal outcome in detail and this is wholly appropriate. But people seem to have no problem demanding to know what has happened to the other party involved. If we demand to know the outcome of whatever process the East Lancashire Railway has followed with this other person, then surely, in the interests of fairness and justice, we should know the full details of Ms Crompton’s appeal? If she wishes to keep this private (which she is fully entitled to do), then we have no right to demand that the outcome regarding the other person is made public. That may be frustrating to some; we may even think it is wrong, but we pride ourselves on fairness, however difficult that is to accept sometimes.
Paul
I do think that you should reply to the comments of Chantal, her points paint a possible VERY different picture. So had you taken these possibilities into account when you blogged so negatively, suggesting the ELR receives a raspberry and calling Mr Kelly crass? I had not thought as deeply as Chantal, but only wondering why Joanne was replying to an open letter and therefore assuming she had not been sent one personally. Now I have read Chantal’s posts I think a far more detailed explanation is required and the blogger, who is purporting to be a railway journalist, should be doing some research into this.
I did hope the blogger will now step back from, what I now realise is a one-sided view, and look into this matter further and professionally
Paul
Do you not reply to replies on your blog? Put your opinion out there and have people comment , but ignore them? Really?
Disillusioned
Adam
The word ‘possible’ is doing a lot of very heavy lifting there. ‘Chantal’ is expressing an opinion based on nothing other than supposition and inference as she has no involvement or inside knowledge of proceedings. In cases she’s adding two and two to get twelveteen. She is entitled to express her opinion and I’ve allowed her to do so. But I am under no obligation to answer her point for point. nor is Ms Crompton. No ‘detailed explanation’ is required in response to her claims, speculations and suppositions.
Although an explanation from Mike Kelly as to why he’s told ELR volunteers one excuse and the public another on his mass blocking of people on Twitter is still outstanding, as neither explanation stood up to the slightest scrutiny. I doubt one will be forthcoming, so technically-minded people will draw their own conclusions.
Have you checked Autoblock on Twitter? I think that’s the most likely answer though he hasn’t said that. Maybe he doesn’t actually know?
It is not “the most likely answer” as that is not how autoblock works. Someone else suggested that excuse and I’m beginning to wonder if you’re not one and the same person.
Thank you, Adam, for your kind comments. I really want to show solidarity with a sister in her battle for fair treatment and justice, but some things do not sit comfortably with me. I do agree that there is more to this than we have been told and it’s not quite the ‘slam-dunk’ it first seemed. Your point about this matter being presented in a ‘one-sided’ way is very perceptive and it made me look again at the limited information we do have from the various media platforms. People are supportive of Ms. Crompton’s reluctance to provide explanations but demand them from Mr Kelly, which does not seem to be in keeping with our insistence that we are fair and reasonable people.
Ms. Crompton’s first two paragraphs (above) are interesting. She implies that the ‘open letter’ was a breach of her privacy; who was it who first revealed this matter on Twitter? Was that not a breach of privacy? Many have praised her for being a ‘whistle-blower’ but seem to have overlooked the standard advice that if you do blow the whistle, be prepared to get a new job. She also complains that no consideration was given to the impact this would have on her. Did she give any similar consideration to the impact on the two individuals who have been targeted by many, publicly on social media – and I can’t for the life of me see what they have done wrong? One was doing her paid, contractual job and the other was fulfilling his legal responsibilities as a director (and I understand this is a voluntary position). I also take issue with her assertion that details have been released of her grievance and appeal in breach of Company Policy. What details, apart from ‘we agree with your complaint’? Surely something to celebrate from her point of view?
Posters on Twitter have repeatedly criticised Mr Kelly for blocking people who post to his account. Is that not the standard tactic advised when someone is being ‘trolled’ – and it is easy to see how these comments could be seen as ‘trolling’? Some of the comments have been utterly vile and certainly justify being blocked. It also concerns me that Ms Crompton has allowed similar comments to remain on her Twitter page, which does lend some credence to the Railway’s view that her use of social media was an issue.
I thought long and hard about this and the fact that many have said that Ms. Crompton only posted negatively after she was told she was no longer required. Firstly, social media is more than making posts on Twitter. Managing your social media pages by monitoring what others post is also important (and I am impressed that Paul allows people to post views which challenge his, thus demonstrating his commitment to freedom of expression as well as stimulating lively discussion). Secondly, making/allowing negative criticism of the very people who are holding your appeal is not a shrewd move, so why do it? Thirdly, it is not just Twitter. A simple Google search will bring up Ms Crompton’s speech to the Heritage Railway Association, which paints heritage railways very negatively. It has been assumed (that word again) that this was done with the East Lancashire Railway’s knowledge and approval. In other words, they allowed her to criticise them (and other railways) publicly and then post it online. If true, no credit has been given to them for this, frankly, illogical decision. But what if that is not true? What if they knew nothing about it? I am assuming (again) that they had delegates at this event. What if they turned up and found out on the day that she was a speaker, had to listen to this very public and damning criticism of them and then see it posted on the internet, and repeatedly referenced by Ms. Crompton?
Paul, what do you know of this? You surely have highly placed contacts in the railway community. Was it approved by the East Lancashire Railway, or was it done against their advice/wishes? Did they know in advance, or didn’t they?
I’ve had two people continuing to spend an inordinate amount of time typing reams and reams of speculation on this matter, demanding answers to imaginary scenarios they’ve dreamt up with to muddy the waters and excuse the behaviour of the ELR management and throw aspersions on Ms Crompton whilst pretending all at the ELR is rosy. One has to wonder why they are so interested in this issue and that they spend so much time trying to muddy the water with irrelevancies.
Enough is enough. I don’t have time to waste indulging their flights of fancy and neither does Ms Crompton.
If any new facts emerge from reputable sources then they will be considered for publication.
Paul
My final comments, Paul, as I respectfully note your wishes. Please, kindly allow this one final indulgence. This resonated with me, as an older woman who has experienced harassment and assaults (including sexual on both counts) and who has worked with and advocated for abused and cared-for children my entire working life. (Please note the various possible meanings of ‘advocated’). I have said repeatedly that I want to be on her side, but if you want potential supporters to be silent, I will comply.
Not ‘inordinate’, done in my coffee break.
‘Speculation’ – my point exactly. Without credible evidence, that’s what happens.
‘Imaginary scenarios’ – there’s nothing imaginary about it. I deal only in evidence.
‘Excuse the ELR’ – they are quite capable of doing that themselves.
‘Irrelevances’- Ms Crompton doesn’t seem to think it’s irrelevant and I have never considered any alleged incident of this kind to be so. This is why the evidence as presented needs to be interrogated.
I can see from publicity that there is a 40s gala at the East Lancashire Railway this weekend. I intend to travel some distance and visit, asking the awkward questions that you seem unwilling or unable to ask, starting with the unanswered issue of the curious mention of two other apparently uninvolved railways.
You will note that I have been nothing but polite and complimentary about you and your blog. I suggest you check out those synonyms for ‘crass’.
Chantal
I hope you had a great weekend. I’m sure I’m not alone in wondering if you did get the answers to the questions?
Adam
In response to Adam Johnson:
Chantal I hope you had a great weekend. I’m sure I’m not alone in wondering if you did get the answers to the questions? Adam
Disappointing to note that my very balanced reply was removed but it is Paul’s right to do as he pleases with his blog. It also removed Emma’s right to reply as well, but again, his choice. I am sorry she has been unable to clarify things, leaving readers to speculate. It also removed some facts from a very reputable source, which Paul advised would be required, but so be it.
I had a great time!
I also discovered that there are plenty of female volunteers and employees, all of whom looked quite happy to be there
Reposting as you clearly deleted this too. What a shame that you are covering up the truth
Journalists don’t do that
Adam
Oh dear. You’ve deleted my comment again. Are women not allowed to post here now, or have I touched a nerve?
Disgusting behaviour, so comments that call into question Ms Crompton’s account or any from women (Chantal’s) are deleted. It was a very dubious statement to begin with and your blog appeared very one-sided. It’s now clear why. It is one-sided with no intention to get to the truth, or accept that Ms Crompton may not be whiter than white. If you were a journalist, as you claim, you’d be checking out what Chantal and Other had posted, not just deleting. Perhaps you could try taking your blinkers off and check out West Coast Railway and Ribble Railway.
Adam
As posts appear in email of your followers reminder of deleted
From sources (I’d question if 1 is reputable)
1 Ms Crompton’s recent tweet where she makes out she didn’t social media policy until disciplined
2 ELRPS social media procedure- cont
….(to ensure fits in email sent to followers
2,,, Until Feb when becoming Finance Director Ms Crompton was Director for Communications Social Media
3 policy makes clear no SM that can harm reputation of ELRPS or ELR
She didn’t know about it!
3 Accounts of ELRPS have been found to be non-compliant with charity rules
4 She and Chair of ELRPS resigned without explanation or notice and AGM took ok place with no way for members to challenge the board or accounts and therefore no AGM decisions could take place- AGM voided