tag:suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk,2009-11-12:/A biopic blog all about the ups and downs of a UK suffolk Firefighter and his relentless battle against Abuse of authority in Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service. Fire Service Command Power, Corrupt Practice, Human Rights, Employer Abuse of vulnerable employees all feature in the blog. MokoFeed2009-11-12T15:44:47+01:00tag:suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk,2007-09-29:/2007/09/29/suffolk_firefighter_doc_280_ipswich_bonf~3059237/bertblythburgh2007-09-29T18:48:05+02:002007-09-29T18:48:05+02:00 <p>Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out The Suffolk Fire Society at<br> <a href="http://www.whitepage.com.au/bertblythburgh/">http://www.whitepage.com.au/bertblythburgh/</a></p> <p>For a rapid scroll back to the beginning link to<br> <a href="http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/">http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/</a> </p> <p>Suffolk County Council</p> <p>Fire Service</p> <p>SubO X<br> Lowestoft Fire Station<br> Lowestoft<br> NR32 2QA</p> <p>KES/DISC/Ff Y/MLA<br> ACFO Seager<br> (01473) 588939<br> 8th July 1999</p> <p>Dear SubO X</p> <p>DISCIPLINE CASE – FIREFIGHTER Y</p> <p>I refer to your letter dated 17TH May 1999, received by the Chief fire Officer’s Personal Assistant on 21st June 1999. I believe you were aware that Mr Allcock was on annual leave at that time. He has passed your letter to me on his return for reply.</p> <p>I can confirm that the appointment of Mr Jackson as an assessor at the summary hearing, due to be heard on 20th July, is to go ahead despite the concerns you raise. My belief, also supported by reliable legal advice, is that this is not prohibited under the Fire Services’ (Discipline) regulations, 1985.</p> <p>For the avoidance of doubt, the decision to appoint an assessor is my decision. The Chief Fire Officer has had no direct involvement in the case to date. This is a sensible precaution, I am sure you will agree, in case the matter is remitted for him to hear following the summary hearing due on 20th July.</p> <p>Yours sincerely</p> <p>K. E. Seager,<br> Assistant Chief Fire Officer (Technical)<br> Brigade Investigating Officer</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk/2007/09/29/suffolk_firefighter_doc_280_ipswich_bonf~3059237/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk,2007-09-29:/2007/09/29/suffolkck_firefighter_doc_280_ipswich_bo~3059233/bertblythburgh2007-09-29T18:47:40+02:002007-09-29T18:47:40+02:00 <p>Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out The Suffolk Fire Society at<br> <a href="http://www.whitepage.com.au/bertblythburgh/">http://www.whitepage.com.au/bertblythburgh/</a></p> <p>For a rapid scroll back to the beginning link to<br> <a href="http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/">http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/</a> </p> <p>Suffolk County Council</p> <p>Fire Service</p> <p>SubO X<br> Lowestoft Fire Station<br> Lowestoft<br> NR32 2QA</p> <p>KES/DISC/Ff Y/MLA<br> ACFO Seager<br> (01473) 588939<br> 8th July 1999</p> <p>Dear SubO X</p> <p>DISCIPLINE CASE – FIREFIGHTER Y</p> <p>I refer to your letter dated 17TH May 1999, received by the Chief fire Officer’s Personal Assistant on 21st June 1999. I believe you were aware that Mr Allcock was on annual leave at that time. He has passed your letter to me on his return for reply.</p> <p>I can confirm that the appointment of Mr Jackson as an assessor at the summary hearing, due to be heard on 20th July, is to go ahead despite the concerns you raise. My belief, also supported by reliable legal advice, is that this is not prohibited under the Fire Services’ (Discipline) regulations, 1985.</p> <p>For the avoidance of doubt, the decision to appoint an assessor is my decision. The Chief Fire Officer has had no direct involvement in the case to date. This is a sensible precaution, I am sure you will agree, in case the matter is remitted for him to hear following the summary hearing due on 20th July.</p> <p>Yours sincerely</p> <p>K. E. Seager,<br> Assistant Chief Fire Officer (Technical)<br> Brigade Investigating Officer</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk/2007/09/29/suffolkck_firefighter_doc_280_ipswich_bo~3059233/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk,2007-08-02:/2007/08/02/suffolk_firefighter_doc_279_suffolk_fire~2744287/bertblythburgh2007-08-02T15:28:26+02:002007-08-02T15:28:26+02:00 <p>Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” </p> <p>For a rapid scroll back to the beginning link to<br> <a href="http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/">http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/</a><br> or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at<br> <a href="http://www.feedster.com/">http://www.feedster.com/</a></p> <p>Z/GEN/Revised</p> <p>SUFFOLK FIRE SERVICE</p> <p>To: ADO Wilson<br> 055 </p> <p>From: SubO X<br> Station: 055</p> <p>Date: 8th July 1999</p> <p>Health & Safety/Union Duties on Duty</p> <p>Sir,</p> <p>Permission is requested to work with Ff Hyde on the preparation of his discipline case on Monday 12th and Tuesday 13th July 1999. </p> <p>Submitted</p> <p>SubO X 854</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk/2007/08/02/suffolk_firefighter_doc_279_suffolk_fire~2744287/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk,2007-04-05:/2007/04/05/suffolk_firefighter_doc_278_do_laurence_~2036757/bertblythburgh2007-04-05T09:23:20+02:002007-04-05T09:23:20+02:00 <p>For a rapid scroll back to the beginning link to<br> <a href="http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/">http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/</a><br> or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at<br> <a href="http://www.feedster.com/">http://www.feedster.com/</a></p> <p>Suffolk County Council</p> <p> Fire Service</p> <p>SubO X<br> C/o P.O. Box 54,<br> Lowestoft<br> Suffolk<br> NR32 2QA<br> PER/SD/CAB<br> Miss S. Davies<br> (01473) 588888<br> 7th July 1999 </p> <p>Dear SubO X,</p> <p>I refer to your letter dated 2nd July, 1999.</p> <p>The position regarding the appointment of an Assessor at Mr. Hyde’s hearing remains as stated in my letter dated 24th June, 1999. I have no records regarding the appointment of assessors at previous hearings; the fact that an event may not have occurred previously does not, of course, make it wrong.</p> <p>Yours sincerely</p> <p>Sarah Davies<br> Personnel Manager</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk/2007/04/05/suffolk_firefighter_doc_278_do_laurence_~2036757/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk,2007-04-05:/2007/04/05/suffolk_firefighter_doc_277_fire_officer~2036741/bertblythburgh2007-04-05T09:20:43+02:002007-04-05T09:20:43+02:00 <p> For a rapid scroll back to the beginning link to<br> <a href="http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/">http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/</a><br> or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at<br> <a href="http://www.feedster.com/">http://www.feedster.com/</a></p> <p>Spare</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk/2007/04/05/suffolk_firefighter_doc_277_fire_officer~2036741/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk,2006-12-15:/2006/12/15/suffolk_firefighter_doc_276_fire_service~1443082/bertblythburgh2006-12-15T21:59:54+01:002006-12-15T21:59:54+01:00 <p>For a rapid scroll back to the beginning link to<br> <a href="http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/">http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/</a><br> or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at<br> <a href="http://www.feedster.com/">http://www.feedster.com/</a></p> <p>Isn’t it Ironic Doc 275?</p> <p>How Miss Sarah Davies (now Meelan) is eager to quote, apply and generally use the literal meaning of the Fire Service (Discipline) regulations when there is Fire Service Command Power Syndrome Theory (FSCPST) advantage at stake. </p> <p>Of course when no such advantage is available, as in the unlawful appointment of the assessor, by literal application or citing of the regulations the last refuge becomes the use of “Spin”.</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk/2006/12/15/suffolk_firefighter_doc_276_fire_service~1443082/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk,2006-09-17:/2006/09/17/suffolk_firefighter_doc_275_merseyside_f~1133444/bertblythburgh2006-09-17T10:46:18+02:002006-09-17T10:46:18+02:00 <p>Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out Beccles Fire Station "SubO X”<br> <a href="http://beccles-fire-station.bloghi.com">http://beccles-fire-station.bloghi.com</a></p> <p>For a rapid scroll back to the beginning link to<br> <a href="http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/">http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/</a><br> or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at<br> <a href="http://www.feedster.com/">http://www.feedster.com/</a></p> <p>Suffolk County Council</p> <p> Fire Service</p> <p>A Wigglesworth<br> C/o P.O. Box 54,<br> Lowestoft<br> Suffolk<br> NR32 2QA<br> PER/SD/CAB<br> Miss S. Davies<br> (01473) 588888<br> 7th July 1999 </p> <p>Dear Mr Wigglesworth,</p> <p>I refer to your letters dated 29th and 30th June, 1999.</p> <p>The summary hearing regarding Mr Hyde’s case will not be recorded, nor will you be permitted to introduce any recording equipment into the hearing. As I am sure you are aware, there is no automatic right of appeal following a summary hearing and, consequently, there is no necessity to record such an event.</p> <p>With regard to your request to ad Mr. English to the list of witnesses called on behalf of Mr. Hyde, I assume this is in place of ( rather than in addition to) Mr. Wood. A letter has been sent to mr English requiring his attendance at the hearing.</p> <p>Yours sincerely</p> <p>Sarah Davies<br> Personnel Manager</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk/2006/09/17/suffolk_firefighter_doc_275_merseyside_f~1133444/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk,2006-08-01:/2006/08/01/suffolk_firefighter_doc_274_telfer_whitf~1004539/bertblythburgh2006-08-01T08:20:03+02:002006-08-01T08:20:03+02:00 <p>Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out The Suffolk Fire Society at<br> <a href="http://www.whitepage.com.au/bertblythburgh/">http://www.whitepage.com.au/bertblythburgh/</a></p> <p>For a rapid scroll back to the beginning link to<br> <a href="http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/">http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/</a><br> or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at<br> <a href="http://www.feedster.com/">http://www.feedster.com/</a></p> <p>Suffolk County Council</p> <p>Fire Service</p> <p>A Wigglesworth<br> Lowestoft Fire Station<br> P.O. Box 54,<br> Lowestoft<br> Suffolk<br> NR32 2QA<br> MHA/MLA<br> M H Alcock<br> 01473) 588969<br> 6th July 1999 </p> <p>Discipline Case – Firefighter M Hyde</p> <p>Dear Mr Wigglesworth,</p> <p>Thank you for your letter of 1st June 1999 requesting my attendance as a witness in the above discipline case. As I am not a witness to material facts. I am not willing to appear as a witness for the defence. </p> <p>Yours sincerely</p> <p>M H Alcock<br> Chief Fire Officer</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk/2006/08/01/suffolk_firefighter_doc_274_telfer_whitf~1004539/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk,2006-06-30:/2006/06/30/suffolk_firefighter_doc_273_teeside_fire~922462/bertblythburgh2006-06-30T08:00:41+02:002006-06-30T08:00:41+02:00 <p>Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X”<br> <a href="http://www.blogomonster.com/bertwrentham/">http://www.blogomonster.com/bertwrentham/</a></p> <p>Mr David Kemp<br> Felixstowe</p> <p>6.07.99</p> <p>Ref: Discipline Case FF: Hyde</p> <p>Dear Tony,</p> <p>With regard to my previous letter stating when I was approached. The date should’ve read December 1998 and not 9 as previously stated.</p> <p>Apologies for the hold up.</p> <p>Yours faithfully</p> <p>David Kemp<br> <a href="mailto:LFf@06">LFf@06</a></p> <p> <small> <a href="http://suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk/2006/06/30/suffolk_firefighter_doc_273_teeside_fire~922462/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk,2006-05-07:/2006/05/07/suffolk_firefighter_doc_272_hertfordshir~782240/bertblythburgh2006-05-07T18:24:00+02:002006-05-07T18:24:00+02:00 <p>Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X”<br> <a href="http://www.blogomonster.com/bertwrentham/">http://www.blogomonster.com/bertwrentham/</a></p> <p> For a rapid scroll back to the beginning link to<br> <a href="http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/">http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/</a><br> or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at<br> <a href="http://www.feedster.com/">http://www.feedster.com/</a></p> <p>POINTS OF INTEREST DOC 217?</p> <p>Regrettably we do not have a copy of the letter Bill Rampling sent to Assistant Chief Fire Officer Seager 18th June 1999.</p> <p>‘First, on the matter of witnesses, the paragraph from the guidance to the discipline regulations you quote in your letter, relates to the duties imposed on the disciplinary body for securing the attendance of witnesses on behalf of the accused. The guidance note is quite specific that that duty extends to “..any witnesses to relevant facts” (my italics) – a point you choose not to emphasis by the use of capital letters in your letter.’</p> <p>We do not think there is any dispute in the term “witnesses to relevant facts”. The dispute is one of who is the arbiter as to what the relevant facts are in the fact. In this case it seems that ACFO Seager and his confederates have decided it is them who will decide and restrict the boundaries of relevant facts. Indeed, to the extent that ACFO Seager will also decide and control the whole remit of defence strategy. In effect ACFO will decide and select the defence witnesses. It is argued that such action is non-compliant with the right to a fair trail under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (article 6.1). As too, is conflicting role of ACFO Seager as investigator, convening officer and prosecutor. </p> <p>‘The emphasis you suggest is quite different, and your interpretation would appear to be that anyone named by the accused as a witness must be ordered to attend whether or not they have been witnesses to relevant facts. I disagree. To follow your argument to a logical conclusion, an accused member would be able to name every serving member of the Brigade as a witness, without any justification as to his or her relevance and each would have to be ordered to attend. This would present us with an impossible administrative burden and would have the effect of frustrating the course of natural justice rather than promoting it. Common sense must prevail, surely? Indeed, you seem to accept as mush by referring in your letter to the need to keep a sense of proportion. If so, I entirely agree with you.’<br> But let’s not forget the accused is not asking the whole brigade to attend. The specified witness list 12th May 1999 (Doc 166) consisted of 12 named individuals, all uniformed officers of Suffolk Fire Service. In consequence it is argued there is little merit in ACFO Seagers plea above.</p> <p>‘In recent cases where an attempt has been made to introduce witnesses for the defence that do not appear to be witnesses to relevant facts, the accused has been given the opportunity to justify the need for the Brigade to order those witnesses to attend.’</p> <p>In reality such quality control judgements are the behest of the presiding officer during the course of the hearing. </p> <p>Where a satisfactory justification has been given, the witness has been ordered to attend. In each case, the accused’s right to independently seek the co-operation of the witness has not been compromised. </p> <p>In essence such a demand results in the defence being forced to reveal strategy and intended conduct to the prosecutor ACFO Seager. Another flagrant breach of article 6.1 ECHR. </p> <p>I have to say that my experiences in this regard have shown that most of those so named have been equally puzzled as to their relevance and have declined to attend. </p> <p>I do not believe that decisions made in recent cases not to order the attendance of named witnesses have materially disadvantaged the defence of the charge, or charges, faced. I also firmly believe that the requirements of natural justice have been fully met.</p> <p>ACFO Seager seems to be saying that his decisions in this case are driven by actions and events connected with previous cases!</p> <p>On your second point, I agree that it is unusual to appoint an assessor at a summary hearing. </p> <p>A more precise term would be unique or precedent.</p> <p>I have to say that my decision to do so is based upon my dealings to date with the accused friend in this specific case, who has barraged me and others with correspondence since the outset, much of which is confusing and written in a way that is difficult to understand. He has raised numerous queries with me about the process of the investigation and the issue of the charge sheet, my involvement, the integrity of officers and other matters. </p> <p>Well this is the first time ACFO has revealed his reasoning. It’s all the fault of the accused friend. Well I suppose that makes it alright for ACFO Seager to commit the offence of “Abuse of Authority” by acting outside the legitimate powers of the Fire Service (discipline) Regulations 1985 does it?</p> <p>Well we must also bear in mind that the case was originally scheduled to be heard at Lowestoft Fire Station 7th June 1999. Same presiding Officer DO Peter Ludford. No attendance of the assessor Suffolk Council Solicitor Mr Chris Jackson. May we conclude that some event/s occurred on or around 7th June 1999 (give or take a few days) to motivate ACFO K Seager to appoint an assessor? The actual record of the appointment of an assessor is 14th June 1999 (Doc 222). Perhaps it was the receipt, by DO Smith, of the defence bundle of documents on 2nd June 1999? Funny how the hearing scheduled for 7th June 1999 was so hurriedly cancelled in the wake of the defence’s bundle of documents arriving at Colchester Road wasn’t it?</p> <p>Finally, on this point. Miss Davies also adds the legal advice plea for the assessor appointment in Doc 258. </p> <p>I believe that these are matters over which the Presiding Officer must exercise judgement within the hearing and I am concerned that the Presiding Officer may want some legal advice during the hearing. I believe the only proper way of providing such advice is to do so openly within the hearing in the presence of the accused himself, hence my decision to invite the Assistant County Solicitor to be an assessor. I do not forsee the need to follow this course of action as the norm unless in future cases, unless I am faced with similar circumstances.</p> <p>The Presiding Officer a senior and trained Fire Service Officer merely needs to make his decisions based on his own knowledge. And most importantly in good faith</p> <p>‘Finally, you question the involvement of Miss Davies in the discipline process. It remains the case that after the charge sheet has been issued, arrangements for the hearing are placed in the hands of the Personnel manager. My role as Investigating officer is, by definition, over once the investigation is complete and the charge sheet has been issued.’</p> <p>At another time and in another blog (Sub Officer X) I think it will be found that ACFO Seager contradicts himself on this statement. Is he lying or just spinning? Is their a difference?</p> <p> Furthermore, since I have been named as a witness by the accused in the case you cite I felt it was improper to involve myself in the decision as to the legitimacy or otherwise of the other witnesses named by the accused. </p> <p>Is this ACFO Seager saying it was Miss Davies who made the RULING over who was deemed as relevant witnesses? i.e. a civilian who is not herself subject to code of conduct she is administering. Nor trained in the application of the discipline regulations. </p> <p>At another recent case heard by the fire Authority, you will recall that the County Director of Personnel undertook this function. It seems reasonable, therefore, for Miss Davies to do so in this internal hearing.</p> <p>In closing, I would wish to point out that it is only in the very recent past that I have felt it necessary to depart from the established and hitherto accepted practices for disciplinary hearings. </p> <p>In consequence an open admission by ACFO Seager of a wilful and conscious understanding that he is acting outside normal and established protocol. </p> <p>Previously in my dealings with Fire brigades’ Union accused friends, I have found them (yourself included) to be reasonable people with whom I have been able to develop a mutual understanding and respect for our different positions.</p> <p>So, again ACFO Seager seems to be blaming the accused friend for his own misdemeanours. He has no respect for the accused friend?</p> <p>So far as my role under the Regulations goes, I have no interest at all in any matters beyond upholding what I believe to be the necessary discipline for the Service to function as a respected public emergency service, and ensuring fairness and natural justice. I therefore utterly refute any suggestion that the process has the appearance of a witch –hunt.</p> <p>I apologise for the length of my reply, but I hope I have adequately addressed your concerns. As ever, I remain willing to meet you or any representative of the Fire Brigades’ Union to discuss disciplinary matters. Please contact, Sigi, my secretary to make an appointment for a meeting if you think it would help.</p> <p>All in all the rhetoric and general discourse provides a valuable insight into the personality traits of a senior fire officer who encounters resistance to his absolute will.</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk/2006/05/07/suffolk_firefighter_doc_272_hertfordshir~782240/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk,2006-03-19:/2006/03/19/suffolk_firefighter_doc_271_evening_star~657099/bertblythburgh2006-03-19T09:15:52+01:002006-03-19T09:15:52+01:00 <p>Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X”<br> <a href="http://www.blogomonster.com/bertwrentham/">http://www.blogomonster.com/bertwrentham/</a></p> <p> For a rapid scroll back to the beginning link to<br> <a href="http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/">http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/</a><br> or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at<br> <a href="http://www.feedster.com/">http://www.feedster.com/</a></p> <p>Suffolk County Council</p> <p>Fire Service</p> <p>B Rampling Esq<br> Bury St Edmunds<br> KES/DISC/FBU/SIS<br> ACFO Seager<br> (01473) 588939</p> <p>5th July 1999</p> <p>Dear Mr Rampling,</p> <p>FIRE SERVICES (DISCIPLINE) REGULATIONS, 1985</p> <p>Thank you for your letter dated 18th June 1999. I am sorry not to have replied to you earlier, but I believe you were aware I was away on annual leave.</p> <p>You do not make it clear whether you are writing on behalf of the Brigade Committee of the Fire Brigades Union, or personally as a concerned member. I shall assume it is the former, though, and respond accordingly.</p> <p>First, on the matter of witnesses, the paragraph from to the discipline regulations you quote in your letter, relates to the duties imposed on the disciplinary body for securing the attendance of witnesses on behalf of the accused. The guidance note is quite specific that that duty extends to “..any witnesses to relevant facts” (my italics) – a point you choose not to emphasis by the use of capital letters in your letter.</p> <p>The emphasis you suggest is quite different, and your interpretation would appear to be that anyone named by the accused as a witness must be ordered to attend whether or not they have been witnesses to relevant facts. I disagree. To follow your argument to a logical conclusion, an accused member would be able to name every serving member of the Brigade as a witness, without any justification as to his or her relevance and each would have to be ordered to attend. This would present us with an impossible administrative burden and would have the effect of frustrating the course of natural justice rather than promoting it. Common sense must prevail, surely? Indeed, you seem to accept as mush by referring in your letter to the need to keep a sense of proportion. If so, I entirely agree with you.</p> <p>In recent cases where an attempt has been made to introduce witnesses for the defence that do not appear to be witnesses to relevant facts, the accused has been given the opportunity to justify the need for the Brigade to order those witnesses to attend. Where a satisfactory justification has been given, the witness has been ordered to attend. In each case, the accused’s right to independently seek the co-operation of the witness has not been compromised. I have to say that my experiences in this regard have shown that most of those so named have been equally puzzled as to their relevance and have declined to attend.</p> <p>I do not believe that decisions made in recent cases not to order the attendance of named witnesses have materially disadvantaged the defence of the charge, or charges, faced. I also firmly believe that the requirements of natural justice have been fully met.</p> <p>On your second point, I agree that it is unusual to appoint an assessor at a summary hearing. I have to say that my decision to do so is based upon my dealings to date with the accused friend in this specific case, who has barraged me and others with correspondence since the outset, much of which is confusing and written in a way that is difficult to understand. He has raised numerous queries with me about the process of the investigation and the issue of the charge sheet, my involvement, the integrity of officers and other matters. I believe that these are matters over which the Presiding Officer must exercise judgement within the hearing and I am concerned that the Presiding Officer may want some legal advice during the hearing. I believe the only proper way of providing such advice is to do so openly within the hearing in the presence of the accused himself, hence my decision to invite the Assistant County Solicitor to be an assessor. I do not forsee the need to follow this course of action as the norm unless in future cases, unless I am faced with similar circumstances.</p> <p>Finally, you question the involvement of Miss davies in the discipline process. It remains the case that after the charge sheet has been issued, arrangements for the hearing are placed in the hands of the Personnel manager. My role as Investigating officer is, by definition, over once the investigation is complete and the charge sheet has been issued. Furthermore, since I have been named as a witness by the accused in the case you cite I felt it was improper to involve myself in the decision as to the legitimacy or otherwise of the other witnesses named by the accused. At another recent case4 heard by the fire Authority, you will recall that the County Director of Personnel undertook this function. It seems reasonable, therefore, for Miss Davies to do so in this internal hearing.</p> <p>In closing, I would wish to point out that it is only in the very recent past that I have felt it necessary to depart from the established and hitherto accepted practices for disciplinary hearings. Previously in my dealings with Fire brigades’ Union accused friends, I have found them (yourself included) to be reasonable people with whom I have been able to develop a mutual understanding and respect for our different positions.</p> <p>So far as my role under the Regulations goes, I have no interest at all in any matters beyond upholding what I believe to be the necessary discipline for the Service to function as a respected public emergency service, and ensuring fairness and natural justice. I therefore utterly refute any suggestion that the process has the appearance of a witch –hunt.</p> <p>I apologise for the length of my reply, but I hope I have adequately addressed your concerns. As ever, I remain willing to meet you or any representative of the Fire Brigades’ Union to discuss disciplinary matters. Please contact, Sigi, my secretary to make an appointment for a meeting if you think it would help.</p> <p>Yours sincerely</p> <p>K. E. Seager,<br> Assistant Chief Fire Officer (Technical)<br> Brigade Investigating Officer</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk/2006/03/19/suffolk_firefighter_doc_271_evening_star~657099/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk,2006-03-11:/2006/03/11/suffolk_firefighter_doc_270_lowestoft_fi~633048/bertblythburgh2006-03-11T12:46:09+01:002006-03-11T12:46:09+01:00 <p>Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X”<br> <a href="http://www.blogomonster.com/bertwrentham/">http://www.blogomonster.com/bertwrentham/</a></p> <p>For a rapid scroll back to the beginning link to<br> <a href="http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/">http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/</a><br> or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at<br> <a href="http://www.feedster.com/">http://www.feedster.com/</a></p> <p>Lowestoft Fire station<br> PO Box 54<br> Lowestoft<br> NR32 2QA</p> <p>5th July 1999</p> <p>Dear Miss Davies,</p> <p>Discipline case – Ff M Hyde</p> <p>With reference to the above case scheduled for 20th July 1999.</p> <p>I would be pleased if you can make overhead projector facilities available for my use at the hearing. If these cannot be provided from your stock at Headquarters please advise so and I will make alternative arrangements to obtain such equipment from the Training centre.</p> <p>Yours faithfully</p> <p>A Wigglesworth BSc, MBA, G.I.Fire.E.</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk/2006/03/11/suffolk_firefighter_doc_270_lowestoft_fi~633048/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk,2006-02-26:/2006/02/26/suffolk_firefighter_doc_269_acfo_andy_fr~593912/bertblythburgh2006-02-26T08:59:04+01:002006-02-26T08:59:04+01:00 <p>Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X”<br> <a href="http://www.blogomonster.com/bertwrentham/">http://www.blogomonster.com/bertwrentham/</a></p> <p> For a rapid scroll back to the beginning link to<br> <a href="http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/">http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/</a><br> or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at<br> <a href="http://www.feedster.com/">http://www.feedster.com/</a></p> <p>Lowestoft Fire station<br> PO Box 54<br> Lowestoft<br> NR32 2QA</p> <p>2nd July 1999</p> <p>Dear Miss Davies,</p> <p>Discipline case – Ff M Hyde</p> <p>Thank you for your letter dated 24th June 1999. </p> <p>As already expressed to you by others, and myself, the appointment of an assessor at a summary hearing is unprecedented. Despite extensive research I have as yet not identified its occurence previously. I would be pleased if you could inform me as to where and when this procedure has been used before.</p> <p>Having widened my search further I note the deliberations of Widgery LCJE 1978 in connection with a Fire service discipline case which departed from normal procedures. The LCJE expressed words to the effect that such action could only possibly be accepted in exceptional circumstances.</p> <p>There is absolutely no doubt the attendance of Mr C Jackson is a serious departure from the specific laid procedures, by regulation and guidance.</p> <p>For that reason above I ask you once more to please provide in a particularised form the exceptional circumstances which exist and require the appointment of Mr C Jackson to the summary hearing of Ff M Hyde.</p> <p>By implication, to ensure the defence is not prejudiced it is my reasonable belief that we are made aware of what these exceptional circumstances are. At the same time I also ask why to date we have not been informed of these circumstances. Indeed, an element essential to natural justice is that the accused should know the nature of the allegation against him/her.</p> <p>Ff Hyde and myself are unaware of any circumstances that could reasonably adjudged to be exceptional.</p> <p>I would be grateful if you could give these matters your prompt attention.</p> <p>Yours faithfully</p> <p>A Wigglesworth BSc, MBA, G.I.Fire.E.</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk/2006/02/26/suffolk_firefighter_doc_269_acfo_andy_fr~593912/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk,2006-02-17:/2006/02/17/suffolk_fireghter_doc_268_suffolk_firefi~570689/bertblythburgh2006-02-17T19:22:46+01:002006-02-17T19:23:54+01:00 <p>Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X”<br> <a href="http://www.blogomonster.com/bertwrentham/">http://www.blogomonster.com/bertwrentham/</a> </p> <p>For a rapid scroll back to the beginning link to<br> <a href="http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/">http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/</a><br> or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at<br> <a href="http://www.feedster.com/">http://www.feedster.com/</a></p> <p>Lowestoft Fire station<br> PO Box 54<br> Lowestoft<br> NR32 2QA</p> <p>2nd July 1999</p> <p>Dear DO Smith,</p> <p>Discipline case – Ff M Hyde</p> <p>Thank you for your letter dated 30th June 1999. </p> <p>In response to paragraph three. I refer you to page two line 6/7 of your typed transcript. Please supply the document to which you refer, in your words dated 21.01.99.</p> <p>Finally, I would ask you to respond fully to the question I posed in my letter, to you 24th June 1999. In particular, can you confirm the relevant bundle of documents have not been seen by any other person. If you are unable to confirm this matter I sahll assume you have divulged the documents entrusted to you and breached trust and confidence.</p> <p>Yours faithfully</p> <p>A Wigglesworth BSc, MBA, G.I.Fire.E.</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk/2006/02/17/suffolk_fireghter_doc_268_suffolk_firefi~570689/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk,2006-02-04:/2006/02/04/suffolk_firefighter_doc_267_john_owers_d~534282/bertblythburgh2006-02-04T18:14:25+01:002006-02-04T18:14:25+01:00 <p>Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X”<br> <a href="http://www.blogomonster.com/bertwrentham/">http://www.blogomonster.com/bertwrentham/</a> </p> <p>For a rapid scroll back to the beginning link to<br> <a href="http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/">http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/</a><br> or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at<br> <a href="http://www.feedster.com/">http://www.feedster.com/</a></p> <p>Overview of Events June 1999</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk/2006/02/04/suffolk_firefighter_doc_267_john_owers_d~534282/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk,2006-01-29:/2006/01/29/suffolk_firefighter_doc_266_haverhill_fi~515516/bertblythburgh2006-01-29T09:56:47+01:002006-01-29T09:56:47+01:00 <p>Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X”<br> <a href="http://www.blogomonster.com/bertwrentham/">http://www.blogomonster.com/bertwrentham/</a></p> <p>For a rapid scroll back to the beginning link to<br> <a href="http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/">http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/</a><br> or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at<br> <a href="http://www.feedster.com/">http://www.feedster.com/</a></p> <p>Suffolk County Council</p> <p> Fire Service</p> <p>A Wigglesworth<br> Lowestoft Fire Station<br> P.O. Box 54,<br> Lowestoft<br> Suffolk<br> NR32 2QA<br> GDS/SIS/DISC<br> DO G Smith<br> (01473) 588861<br> 30th June 1999 </p> <p>Dear Mr Wigglesworth,</p> <p>I have just returned from leave and acknowledge three letters from yourself dated 10th June 1999, 23rd June and 24th June 1999 respectively. </p> <p>In the final paragraph of your letter dated 10th June 1999 you indicate you prefer your own record of proceedings at the hearing. For your information no verbatim recording is made at a summary hearing. Because there is no right of appeal to awards made at a summary hearing, there is no requirement for a record to be made. However, should you choose to be accompanied by an assistant, that person could, of course, make notes. For your information ADO Meelan will be my assistant for the hearing. I must point out though that the Presiding Officer will not allow proceedings to be interrupted by an individual attempting to maintain a verbatim record.</p> <p>In respect of your letter dated 23rd June 1999 you request a copy of a written order dated 21st January 1999. If you check the transcript of the interview with Firefighter Hyde you will see it actually refers to a written order dated 20th January 1999. I assume this is the document you refer to and this was copied to Mr Hyde when he was served with the charge sheet. I can confirm that that document is a copy of the one in my possession and is unedited.</p> <p>In response to your letter dated 24th June 1999 I would remind you that I wrote to you on 4th June 1999 stating in the final paragraph that the documents you refer to have been secured in my office. I also offered you the opportunity to request their return.</p> <p>Yours sincerely</p> <p>G D Smith<br> Divisional Officer</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk/2006/01/29/suffolk_firefighter_doc_266_haverhill_fi~515516/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk,2006-01-21:/2006/01/21/suffolk_firefighter_doc_265_reasons_to_r~491521/bertblythburgh2006-01-21T08:47:06+01:002006-01-21T08:47:06+01:00 <p>Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X”<br> <a href="http://www.blogomonster.com/bertwrentham/">http://www.blogomonster.com/bertwrentham/</a> </p> <p>For a rapid scroll back to the beginning link to<br> <a href="http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/">http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/</a><br> or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at<br> <a href="http://www.feedster.com/">http://www.feedster.com/</a></p> <p>Lowestoft Fire station<br> PO Box 54<br> Lowestoft<br> NR32 2QA</p> <p>30th June 1999</p> <p>Dear Miss Davies,</p> <p>Discipline case – Ff M Hyde</p> <p>Thank you for your letter dated 22nd June 1999. </p> <p>This indicates the unavailability of Ff Wood on 20th July 1999.</p> <p>Having given consideration to Ff Wood’s non-appearance we now wish to call T/LFf English to fill the resulting gap. T/LFf English’s relevance is completely compatible to that of Ff Wood. Therefore, a witness of equal value.</p> <p>Yours faithfully</p> <p>A Wigglesworth BSc, MBA, G.I.Fire.E.</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk/2006/01/21/suffolk_firefighter_doc_265_reasons_to_r~491521/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk,2006-01-15:/2006/01/15/suffolk_firefighter_doc_264_fbu_industri~472174/bertblythburgh2006-01-15T09:25:56+01:002006-01-15T09:25:56+01:00 <p>Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X”<br> <a href="http://www.blogomonster.com/bertwrentham/">http://www.blogomonster.com/bertwrentham/</a> </p> <p>For a rapid scroll back to the beginning link to<br> <a href="http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/">http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/</a><br> or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at<br> <a href="http://www.feedster.com/">http://www.feedster.com/</a></p> <p>Lowestoft Fire station<br> PO Box 54<br> Lowestoft<br> NR32 2QA</p> <p>29th June 1999</p> <p>Dear Miss Davies,</p> <p>Discipline case – Ff M Hyde</p> <p>With reference to my earlier notice to you of an intention to maintain a record of the hearing to the above case.</p> <p>I am currently looking to make arrangements for tape recording equipment by hire or other means. As such cost will fall on the FBU, the latter’s officials have asked me to inform you in good time that we wish to introduce such equipment to the hearing.</p> <p>I trust you have no objection to the FBU introducing such equipment into the hearing. Unless I hear to the contrary I will take steps to obtain such equipment.</p> <p>Yours faithfully</p> <p>A Wigglesworth BSc, MBA, G.I.Fire.E.</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk/2006/01/15/suffolk_firefighter_doc_264_fbu_industri~472174/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk,2006-01-05:/2006/01/05/suffolk_firefighter_doc_263_fbu_recall_c~443102/bertblythburgh2006-01-05T16:26:18+01:002006-01-05T16:26:18+01:00 <p>Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X”<br> <a href="http://www.blogomonster.com/bertwrentham/">http://www.blogomonster.com/bertwrentham/</a></p> <p>For a rapid scroll back to the beginning link to<br> <a href="http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/">http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/</a><br> or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at<br> <a href="http://www.feedster.com/">http://www.feedster.com/</a></p> <p>Suffolk County Council</p> <p>Fire Service</p> <p>A Wigglesworth Esq<br> Fire brigades Union<br> Lowestoft Fire Station<br> P.O. Box 54, Lowestoft<br> Suffolk NR32 2QA</p> <p>SAS/SIS<br> SASmith<br> (01473) 588939</p> <p>28th June 1999 </p> <p>Dear Mr Wigglesworth,</p> <p>DISCIPLINE CASE – FIREFIGHTER M HYDE</p> <p>Thank you for your letter of 1st June 1999 requesting my attendance as a witness in the above discipline case. As I am not a witness to material facts, I am not willing to appear as a witness for the defence.</p> <p>Yours sincerely</p> <p>S A Smith<br> Deputy Chief fire Officer</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk/2006/01/05/suffolk_firefighter_doc_263_fbu_recall_c~443102/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk,2005-12-27:/2005/12/27/suffolk_firefighter_doc_262_fbu_recall_c~418760/bertblythburgh2005-12-27T09:21:26+01:002006-01-05T16:22:02+01:00 <p>Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "Lowestoft Firefighter”<br> <a href="http://www.blogomonster.com/bertwrentham/">http://www.blogomonster.com/bertwrentham/</a></p> <p>Mr David Kemp<br> Felixstowe</p> <p>27.06.99</p> <p>Ref: Discipline Case FF: Hyde</p> <p>Dear Tony,</p> <p>With regard to your letter dated 23.06.99.</p> <p>I can confirm I was offered a temporary secondment to Normanshurst Station in early December 1999. However, I don’t know by whom, as a message was left on my answer phone from my station and not a senior officer.</p> <p>I believe the reason behind asking me to go to Normanshurst at the time was due to the fact that I had a transfer request in to go there as a leading fire-fighter or Acting Sub Officer to gain watch experience as a senior officer on a station of my choice.</p> <p>I hope this letter finds you well</p> <p>Yours faithfully</p> <p>David Kemp<br> <a href="mailto:LFf@06">LFf@06</a></p> <p> <small> <a href="http://suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk/2005/12/27/suffolk_firefighter_doc_262_fbu_recall_c~418760/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk,2005-12-18:/2005/12/18/suffolk_firefighter_doc_261_buncefield_i~395522/bertblythburgh2005-12-18T09:16:19+01:002005-12-18T09:16:19+01:00 <p>The Fire Brigades Union</p> <p>No. 10 Region<br> Chris Hayward<br> 55 Burrell Rd<br> Ipswich<br> Suffolk<br> IP2 8AH</p> <p>24th June 1999</p> <p>CFO Alcock<br> Suffolk Fire Service<br> IP2 8AH</p> <p>Dear Mr Alcock,</p> <p>Appointment of assessors for summary hearings</p> <p>I am writing to you to express my concern regarding the brigades decision to appoint an assessor for a summary hearing within the Fire Service discipline regulations 1985.<br> To my knowledge this is a first for Suffolk. I have spoken to Bill Rampling and Graham Tranquada who deal with discipline matters on behalf of the union at brigade and regional level respectively and both are unaware of this circumstance happening before. My investigations would therefore indicate to me that this would indeed be setting a precedent.<br> I have contacted Thompsons the FBU solicitors for advice on this matter. Their opinion is that the brigade are not entitled to appoint an assessor for a summary hearing. That regulation 9 (4) specifically provides the chief with power to appoint up to two assessors for a hearing where the hearing falls to be heard by him or the elected members. A summary hearing, regulation 9 (3) procedure does not fall within either of the above circumstances and as such no assessor should be present.</p> <p>The guidance states "the general tone of the hearing (summary) should be more of an interview than a procedural hearing". This then begs the question what role an assessor would play in an "interview" style hearing.</p> <p>1. Why are the brigade seemingly going against the discipline procedures and guidance?<br> 2. Who made the decision to appoint an assessor?<br> 3. Why does the brigade believe there is a necessity to have an assessor present.<br> 4. Is this precedent, due to the fact that the defendant is an active trade union official?<br> 5. Why is there no mention of assessors in the guidance (annex c) regarding summary hearings if this facility is available to the brigade?<br> 6. Why does the role and function of an assessor only appear under annex d (the full hearing ) in the guidance notes?<br> 7. Can the brigade provide an example where this has happened before? </p> <p>The FBU firmly believes that by appointing an assessor, the brigade is not adhering to the 1985 discipline regulations and I would ask that this decision is reversed.</p> <p>The case in question has been set for the 20th July. I would therefore be grateful if I could receive a reply as soon as possible.</p> <p>Yours sincerely,</p> <p>Chris Hayward</p> <p>Brigade Secretary, Suffolk FBU. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk/2005/12/18/suffolk_firefighter_doc_261_buncefield_i~395522/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk,2005-12-11:/2005/12/11/suffolk_firefighter_doc_260_stowmarket_f~377201/bertblythburgh2005-12-11T10:25:32+01:002005-12-11T10:25:32+01:00 <p> Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "Lowestoft Firefighter” <a href="http://www.livejournal.com/users/bertblythburgh/">http://www.livejournal.com/users/bertblythburgh/</a></p> <p>For a rapid scroll back to the beginning link to<br> <a href="http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/">http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/</a><br> or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at<br> <a href="http://www.feedster.com/">http://www.feedster.com/</a></p> <p> <small> <a href="http://suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk/2005/12/11/suffolk_firefighter_doc_260_stowmarket_f~377201/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk,2005-12-11:/2005/12/11/suffolk_firefighter_doc_259_bunsfield_oi~377197/bertblythburgh2005-12-11T10:24:00+01:002005-12-18T09:17:53+01:00 <p>Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "Lowestoft Firefighter” <a href="http://www.livejournal.com/users/bertblythburgh/">http://www.livejournal.com/users/bertblythburgh/</a></p> <p>For a rapid scroll back to the beginning link to<br> <a href="http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/">http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/</a><br> or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at<br> <a href="http://www.feedster.com/">http://www.feedster.com/</a></p> <p>KEYPOINTS DOC 258? </p> <p>1. The appointment of an assessor is claimed to be approved/suggested on ‘Legal advice given to Mr, Seager.’</p> <p>Perhaps it’s the advice of Mr Jackson?</p> <p>Did Mr. Seager suggest the appointment of an assessor or was it Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms Legal advice?</p> <p>And when was the Legal advice requested before or after the appointment of an assessor? </p> <p>Perhaps the letter content suggests Legal advice has only extended as far as the right of appointment ?</p> <p>By the way it is a fact that Mr Seager, in preparation for the role of Brigade Investigating Officer, was privileged to attend the extensive Brigade Command course at the Fire Service College Moreton – in – Marsh. So, fully equipped with comprehensive Legal training for all the challenges inherent in any Fire service Discipline prosecution that is executed properly and according to statute. </p> <p>Of course the explanatory plea to the wisdom of Legal advice pegged to the ultra-viries appointment the assessor might be more convincing if it had been volunteered on 14th June 1999 (Doc 224) in Miss Sarah Davie’s (now Mrs Meelan) letter?</p> <p>In Doc 224:</p> <p>There is no mention of the decision to appoint an assessor belonging to Mr Seager?</p> <p>There is no merit to its reasoning being due to Legal advice?</p> <p>Finally, for all intents and purpose’s Miss Davies (now Mrs Meelan) puts responsibility for the appointment solely on Mr Seager. In fact, Miss Davies (now Mrs Meelan) claims no knowledge of the reason for appointment. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk/2005/12/11/suffolk_firefighter_doc_259_bunsfield_oi~377197/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk,2005-12-11:/2005/12/11/suffolk_firefighter_doc_258_bunsfield_ex~377193/bertblythburgh2005-12-11T10:22:09+01:002005-12-18T09:18:26+01:00 <p>Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "Lowestoft Firefighter” <a href="http://www.livejournal.com/users/bertblythburgh/">http://www.livejournal.com/users/bertblythburgh/</a></p> <p>For a rapid scroll back to the beginning link to<br> <a href="http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/">http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/</a><br> or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at<br> <a href="http://www.feedster.com/">http://www.feedster.com/</a></p> <p>Suffolk County Council</p> <p> Fire Service</p> <p>A Wigglesworth<br> C/o P.O. Box 54,<br> Lowestoft<br> Suffolk<br> NR32 2QA<br> PER/SD/SS<br> Miss S. Davies<br> (01473) 588872</p> <p> 24th June 1999 </p> <p>Dear Mr Wigglesworth,</p> <p>I refer to your letter dated 22nd June 1999.</p> <p>Thank you for clarifying Mr. Seager’s commitment to copy his own letters to Mr. Jones. I make no such commitment and my position remains as stated in my letter dated 18th June.</p> <p>Legal advice given to Mr. Seager regarding the appointment of an assessor at Mr. Hyde’s hearing is, I understand, contrary to your own interpretation on this point. We consider the appointment of an Assessor to be a reasonable and consistent with the Fire service Discipline Regulations. With regard to the reason for an Assessor being appointed, I am afraid you will need to refer this point to Mr. Seager, as the Brigade Investigating Officer. Mr. Seager is, I believe away on leave until 1st July.</p> <p>I note that you are considering pursuing this matter under the Disputes Procedure. You may like to bear in mind the “Grey Book” specifically excludes disciplinary matters from the Disputes procedures.</p> <p>Yours sincerely</p> <p>Sarah Davies<br> Personnel Manager</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk/2005/12/11/suffolk_firefighter_doc_258_bunsfield_ex~377193/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk,2005-12-03:/2005/12/03/suffolk_firefighter_doc_257_haverhill_fi~358199/bertblythburgh2005-12-03T20:18:09+01:002005-12-03T20:18:09+01:00 <p>Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "Lowestoft Firefighter” <a href="http://www.livejournal.com/users/bertblythburgh/">http://www.livejournal.com/users/bertblythburgh/</a></p> <p> For a rapid scroll back to the beginning link to<br> <a href="http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/">http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/</a><br> or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at<br> <a href="http://www.feedster.com/">http://www.feedster.com/</a></p> <p>Z/GEN/Revised</p> <p>SUFFOLK FIRE SERVICE</p> <p>To: Station Officer Rolfe </p> <p>From:Ff Wigglesworth<br> Station: 055</p> <p>Date: 24th June 1999</p> <p>Health & Safety/Union Duties on Duty</p> <p>Sir,</p> <p>Permission is requested to walk to the post box at the end of Northgate to insert a letter. The letter is related to matters connected with Firefighter Hyde’s discipline case. </p> <p>Submitted</p> <p>A Wigglesworth Ff 854</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk/2005/12/03/suffolk_firefighter_doc_257_haverhill_fi~358199/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk,2005-11-29:/2005/11/29/suffolk_firefighter_doc_256_haverhill_fi~346125/bertblythburgh2005-11-29T08:56:44+01:002005-11-29T08:56:44+01:00 <p>Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” <a href="http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/">http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/</a></p> <p>For a rapid scroll back to the beginning link to<br> <a href="http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/">http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/</a><br> or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at<br> <a href="http://www.feedster.com/">http://www.feedster.com/</a></p> <p>Suffolk County Council</p> <p>Secretary and Solicitor</p> <p>Mr A D Wigglesworth<br> The fire Brigade Union<br> C/o P.O. Box 54,<br> Lowestoft<br> Suffolk<br> NR32 2QA<br> 6028/KWS/TQ 588969<br> 24th June 1999 </p> <p>Dear Mr Wigglesworth,</p> <p>Thank you for your letter of 15 June 1999, which was received on 23rd June.</p> <p>I understand that you have written in similar terms to the Chief Fire Officer.</p> <p>You will in due course be receiving a reply to the points that you raise from him.</p> <p>Yours sincerely</p> <p>K W STEVENS<br> County Secretary and Solicitor</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk/2005/11/29/suffolk_firefighter_doc_256_haverhill_fi~346125/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk,2005-11-29:/2005/11/29/the_suffolk_hyde_affair_doc_255_suffolk_~346120/bertblythburgh2005-11-29T08:52:58+01:002005-11-29T08:52:58+01:00 <p> Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” <a href="http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/">http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/</a></p> <p>For a rapid scroll back to the beginning link to<br> <a href="http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/">http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/</a><br> or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at<br> <a href="http://www.feedster.com/">http://www.feedster.com/</a></p> <p>The Fire Brigades Union</p> <p>No. 10 Region</p> <p>Reply to:</p> <p>Lowestoft Fire station<br> PO Box 54<br> Lowestoft<br> NR32 2QA</p> <p>24th June 1999</p> <p>Dear DO Smith,</p> <p>Discipline Case - Ff M Hyde</p> <p>In compliance with normal practice and courtesy you were provided with a bundle of documents that the defence may have relied on for the hearing was scheduled for 7th June 1999. The hearing was postponed at short notice. The documents were also necessary for you to carry out the duty imposed upon you by the relevant regulations.</p> <p>‘To bring out both sides of the case fairly.’</p> <p>If I might remind you the bundle of documents were for your own personal use. Solely provided to you for a fair opportunity to advance a valid and informed counter argument if you so choose. I naturally assumed that this was the implication you inferred by virtue of good faith.</p> <p>Bearing the above in mind I would be pleased if you can confirm the relevant bundle of documents have remained under your possession at all times since service. At the same time I would ask you to confirm good faith in the form of trust and confidence complete with total confidentiality has been preserved.</p> <p>Finally, if these documents have been divulged or shown to any other person I would be pleased if this/those persons can be named by you. It is my reasonable belief that you will have no concern or reservations in responding to the issues I have raised.</p> <p>Yours faithfully</p> <p>A Wigglesworth BSc, MBA, G.I.Fire.E.</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk/2005/11/29/the_suffolk_hyde_affair_doc_255_suffolk_~346120/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk,2005-11-17:/2005/11/17/suffolk_firefighter_doc_254_suffolk_musc~314412/bertblythburgh2005-11-17T08:58:22+01:002005-11-19T20:05:27+01:00 <p>Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” <a href="http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/">http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/</a></p> <p>For a rapid scroll back to the beginning link to<br> <a href="http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/">http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/</a><br> or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at<br> <a href="http://www.feedster.com/">http://www.feedster.com/</a></p> <p>8 The Bretts<br> Kesgrave<br> Ipswich<br> IP5 2YY</p> <p>Lowestoft Fire station<br> PO Box 54<br> Lowestoft<br> NR32 2QA </p> <p>23rd June 1999</p> <p>Dear Mr Wigglesworth</p> <p>Discipline Case – Ff M Hyde</p> <p>I refer to your letter to me dated 1st June 1999.</p> <p>You ask me to attend Mr Hyde’s forthcoming discipline hearing as a witness for his defence. Firstly you make reference to the presentation of various documents sourced by myself which are highly relevant material facts of the case. Secondly you indicate that I will also recall my involvement in the grievance raised by Mr Hyde.</p> <p>With reference to your first point I do not believe that I am in possesion of any relevant facts that will assist in his defence in his forthcoming discipline hearing.</p> <p>In relation to your second point, you are correct that I was involved at the appropriate stage in the grievance submitted by Mr Hyde, and you are of course aware of the outcome of my decision on the grievance, which was clearly recorded and sent to Mr Hyde.</p> <p>Finally I would point out that I find your comments “I am also led to believe that you are an FBU member so must be willing to act as a witness for a fellow member”, as totally unacceptable. They are a challenge to my integrity.</p> <p>An individual’s membership of the FBU or otherwise is not an issue when I am carrying out my day to day duty, be it the hearing of grievance cases, the investigating of alleged breaches of discipline, or my involvement as a witness in any particular case.</p> <p>I cannot believe that the FBU would expect me treat their members any differently from any other serving firefighter or officer in such matters, a point I have also made to the FBU Brigade Secretary, Mr C Hayward.</p> <p>As already stated I do not believe that I am in possession of any relevant facts that will assist in the defence of Mr M Hyde, and therefore based on this fact alone, I can see no justification for my agreeing to act as a witness in his defence.</p> <p>Yours sincerely</p> <p>CF Hodge, BSc, M.I.Fire.E.</p> <p>As you will no doubt have heard Firefighter M Hyde has been charged with the above offence 13th April 1999.</p> <p>I understand that you were approached and offered the Leading firefighter position on a temporary secondment to Lowestoft blue watch in early December 1998. This matter is of considerable interest to the discipline case, indeed it contradicts in part the rationale held for Firefighter Hyde’s dismissal from post.</p> <p>Bearing the above in mind I would be extremely grateful if you could pass comment in statement form on your view of the situation. In particular, I ask you to confirm if you were offered the post above and if so when this actually was. At the same time, if you can recall, I would be most interested in establishing if you were given any particular reasons as to why you were offered this particular post. If there is any other factual information you feel may be relevant please include it in your statement.</p> <p>Just to remind you the document might be used in Firefighter Hyde’s discipline case. As such it is important your statement should be accurate and true to the best of your knowledge.</p> <p>Please ensure your statement is returned to me as soon as possible. In anticipation I thank you for your assistance.</p> <p>Yours faithfully</p> <p>A Wigglesworth BSc, MBA, G.I.Fire.E.</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk/2005/11/17/suffolk_firefighter_doc_254_suffolk_musc~314412/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk,2005-11-17:/2005/11/17/suffolk_firefighter_doc_253_haverhill_fs~314410/bertblythburgh2005-11-17T08:57:19+01:002005-11-17T08:57:19+01:00 <p>Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” <a href="http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/">http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/</a></p> <p>For a rapid scroll back to the beginning link to<br> <a href="http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/">http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/</a><br> or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at<br> <a href="http://www.feedster.com/">http://www.feedster.com/</a></p> <p>Suffolk County Council</p> <p> Fire Service</p> <p>Mr A D Wigglesworth<br> The Fire Brigades Union<br> C/o P.O. Box 54,<br> Lowestoft<br> Suffolk<br> NR32 2QA<br> MHA/MLA<br> Marie Anderson<br> (01473) 588969<br> 23rd June 1999 </p> <p>Dear Mr Wigglesworth,</p> <p>Disciplinary Hearing – 20th July 1999</p> <p>I write in respect of your letter dated 17th May 1999 received at this office on 21st June 1999.</p> <p>Mr Alcock is away from the office on annual leave until 6th July 1999. I will, therefore, ensure your letter is brought to his attention when he returns.</p> <p>Yours sincerely</p> <p>Marie Anderson<br> PA to Chief Fire Officer</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk/2005/11/17/suffolk_firefighter_doc_253_haverhill_fs~314410/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk,2005-11-17:/2005/11/17/suffolk_firefighter_doc_252_haverhill_fi~314408/bertblythburgh2005-11-17T08:55:19+01:002005-11-17T08:55:19+01:00 <p> Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X” <a href="http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/">http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/</a></p> <p>For a rapid scroll back to the beginning link to<br> <a href="http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/">http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/</a><br> or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at<br> <a href="http://www.feedster.com/">http://www.feedster.com/</a></p> <p>The Fire Brigades Union</p> <p>No. 10 Region</p> <p>Reply to:</p> <p>Lowestoft Fire station<br> PO Box 54<br> Lowestoft<br> NR32 2QA</p> <p>23rd June 1999</p> <p>Dave Kemp</p> <p>Dear Dave,</p> <p>Ff M Hyde – Conduct Prejudicial to Discipline – Discovery of Documents</p> <p>As you will no doubt have heard Firefighter M Hyde has been charged with the above offence 13th April 1999.</p> <p>I understand that you were approached and offered the Leading firefighter position on a temporary secondment to Lowestoft blue watch in early December 1998. This matter is of considerable interest to the discipline case, indeed it contradicts in part the rationale held for Firefighter Hyde’s dismissal from post.</p> <p>Bearing the above in mind I would be extremely grateful if you could pass comment in statement form on your view of the situation. In particular, I ask you to confirm if you were offered the post above and if so when this actually was. At the same time, if you can recall, I would be most interested in establishing if you were given any particular reasons as to why you were offered this particular post. If there is any other factual information you feel may be relevant please include it in your statement.</p> <p>Just to remind you the document might be used in Firefighter Hyde’s discipline case. As such it is important your statement should be accurate and true to the best of your knowledge.</p> <p>Please ensure your statement is returned to me as soon as possible. In anticipation I thank you for your assistance.</p> <p>Yours faithfully</p> <p>A Wigglesworth BSc, MBA, G.I.Fire.E.</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk/2005/11/17/suffolk_firefighter_doc_252_haverhill_fi~314408/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>