I’ve been campaigning for disabled people’s transport rights for years. I’m a wheelchair user. I’ve worked with transport operators, given evidence to Parliament, and I’ve challenged the industry when it fails disabled people.
On 13 February, I received the results of a Subject Access Request to the Rail Delivery Group (RDG) showing what staff and members say about me. What I found has shaken me.
I’m publishing these internal communications in the public interest, given what they reveal about how the rail industry views disabled passengers and their advocates.
[All quoted documents are linked in the text, but here’s the full file.]
Personal Abuse
In many internal messages, RDG staff discussed me extensively. Not my concerns, me personally. The tone ranged from dismissive to openly hostile.
Staff illegitimately claimed I’d been “barred from a few disability forums for causing problems.” Apparently, I falsely claim to be an “advisor to RDG.” (I don’t, wouldn’t and never have.) They labelled me “vexatious” – the magic word bureaucrats use to strip citizens of their rights. (Curiously, the Office of Rail and Road’s board had recently noted I was “relentless, but not vexatious“ – but why let the regulator’s assessment interfere with a good slur?) But it got worse.
You know, one day Doug Paulley may even try to say something positive about the rail industry. But until then we watch pink pigs flying past the window. I and others are tired of Paulley speaking for us while he rakes in the obscene compensation by bullying.
They have known me for decades, and yet still think I sue for the money?! Staffing barrow crossing stations, rail replacement bus accessibility and assistance fail redress reform – all came from legal action they’d rather I hadn’t taken. They call this ‘bullying’, but the courts call it discrimination. It is so much easier to accuse somebody of being in it for avarice than to own the judges’ findings.
I don’t have much money. I live in a care home in Yorkshire. Asking for compensation, not just warm words, drives change. Companies can write letters at no cost, but paying makes a difference to them. No bunch of flowers has ever provided a ramp. Only people who can’t imagine someone fighting for civil rights without a profit motive would think otherwise.
Labeled a Vandal
In October 2025, whilst in Manchester Victoria I tried a “Welcome Point” – an automated kiosk that many fear will replace human assistance. They are shiny, cheap, pointless distractions from the unshiny and costly industry failure to commit to accessible infrastructure.
I filmed myself pressing the assistance button and the touchscreen to test responsiveness. I didn’t damage anything. I didn’t spray paint it. I attempted to use it as a passenger does, only to find that it isn’t fit for purpose, which my video above demonstrates.
(I’m sad it didn’t work, because the accessibility step change when it does is amazing. Oh, wait…)
In the RDG internal chat logs, staff didn’t discuss whether the machine worked. They railed at being shown that the accessibility Emperor has no clothes. One wrote:
I bet Doug looks a bit silly now, with his video of vandalising a TOC property!
Testing accessibility isn’t vandalism. It’s exactly what advocates should do. But RDG staff saw it as an opportunity to mock me.
One message described me as “incredibly impatient” and as someone who “wants to trip us rather than positively influence design.” If they expect patient users to wait more than a minute at their so-called ‘innovative’ Welcome Point, they should review the whole concept.
Perverse Validation
Another staff member responded to my concerns with this:
Ha. If we’re getting challenged by Doug Paulley, then we’re definitely doing something right.
A disabled person raising accessibility concerns is seen as validation that they’re on the right track. As if this is all a game.
Weaponising Us
But the personal abuse is just the tip of the iceberg. The documents reveal a deliberate strategy to pit disabled people against one another.
Staff repeatedly referenced their “stakeholders” and “endorsers”. What they meant was disabled people and charities that supported Welcome Points. One message stated:
We have a strong cross-section of disability stakeholders in support, and that will drown out any opposition when we move towards rollout.
We have support of organisations and those with lived experience who are in full support of the WP’s… Our stock is high; it will take more than opportunistic mudslinging to knock us off course
This is tokenism at its worst. RDG cultivated relationships with certain disabled people and organisations, not to genuinely address accessibility, but to use them as shields against criticism. The plan was to point to their “disability stakeholders” to show the government all is well, dismissing concerns from disabled people like me as (supposedly) just a single, embittered voice.
We see this divide-and-conquer strategy more and more in the railway industry: the “good” disabled people who cooperate versus the “difficult” ones who challenge and push for better accessibility. Organisations that really want change bring critical friends to the table, rather than hand-picking people who nod along to every proposal.
Recruiting the Government
It goes higher than just RDG internal chats. When I raised safety concerns about Welcome Points, one email reveals RDG’s response: “I’ve been able to encourage DfT to be more aware of these stories and to be ready for any media enquiries.“
They briefed the Department for Transport not on the accessibility failure I’d identified, but on how to manage me as a media problem. They recruited a government department into their reputation management strategy.
Strategic Silence
What disturbed me most was the coordination. When I posted about Welcome Points, staff advised each other to “keep our powder dry” and avoid engagement. They wanted to wait until they could launch a “positive push” with endorsements from other disability groups – groups with which the RDG can control the narrative.
One message stated bluntly:
He’s a professional campaigner and never going to give us the thumbs up or any support. Stakeholders have reiterated that this will be always be the case with Doug.
This isn’t how you treat legitimate concerns; it is a cynical attempt to manage a PR problem.
A Chorus, Not a Solo
On 13 February, RDG’s CEO Office Director sent me an apology, together with the SAR documents. It acknowledged that the comments were “not acceptable” and said it was “instigating formal action against the individual responsible“.
The individual. Singular.
But these weren’t isolated comments from one person. Multiple people participated across different teams- including, it appears, some from outside RDG itself. This was culture, not one bad apple.
In all the pages of chat logs and emails, not once did a single member of staff step in to say, “This is inappropriate,” or “Actually, he has a point.” When someone called me a “vandal“, colleagues didn’t correct them; they agreed. In a corporate environment, silence is endorsement.
The letter says these views don’t represent RDG’s values. The evidence suggests they absolutely do.
Rotten Culture
I’m not sharing these emails for sympathy, but because they reveal something important about how the rail industry views disabled passengers. What we always expected, we now have in writing.
If this is how they treat someone with a public profile and legal knowledge, imagine how they view ordinary disabled passengers who dare to complain about inaccessible stations or failed assists. Everything is a PR problem for them, not a welcome opportunity to reflect and improve.
The Equality Act requires reasonable adjustments. The industry doesn’t even achieve that, but even if it did, legal compliance is meaningless if the culture treats disabled people’s needs as inconveniences and their advocates as enemies. And it’s even more appalling when they use some disabled people as tokens to silence others.
No Role in GBR
I’ve sent RDG a formal non-compliance notice demanding the identities of those who made defamatory statements. If they refuse, I’ll pursue legal remedies.
But beyond individual accountability, this exposes how the industry treats disabled passengers’ needs – as PR problems, not opportunities to improve.
That culture has no place in the new Great British Railways.
The messages are public now. The culture is exposed.
Mandy Sankey’s LinkedIn profile