The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 3 East Anglia Ambulance NHS Trust Board member

For a rapid scroll back beginningto end link to http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/

Events in the year and a bit prior to Y’s Temporary Promotion

Perhaps a key event worthy of noting was the controversial demise of CFO Tony Baker. At the time well summed up by the local Suffolk rag with the front page headlines January 14 - 1997 :
Investigation into claims brigade boss drank while on duty.

FIRE CHIEF IN DRINKS PROBE

Also, the other memorable quotes,
The head of Suffolk’s fire service is under investigation for allegedly drinking while on duty. Tony Baker is also a magistrate…………It is believed members of his own staff made the complaint against him…………..Mr Baker, 49 has been on sick leave since last week………….The alleged incident is understood to have happened at a lunch at Normanshurst Fire station, Lowestoft, a week before Christmas. Mr Baker is alleged to have drunk beer and wine at the annual meal in the station mess, which was attended by about 30 firefighters. It is believed two written complaints were made… …………………………….The Suffolk brigade’s alcohol policy came into force two months ago and states: " From the date of the issue of this order, it is prohibited for any fire service employee to consume any amount of alcohol whilst on duty."…. …………orders, sanctioned by Mr Baker himself state: " The county fire officer has overall responsibility for the implementation of the county council policy within the fire service."………….. Mr Baker was yesterday said to be "unavailable" by his wife,……, at the couples detached house in Ipswich.

What happened next ?

A few weeks later Mr Baker retired on grounds of permanent ill health. At the same time it was circulated that the Hertfordshire CFO, appointed to investigate Mr Baker, conclude no case to answer. As for Mr Baker, shortly afterwards it appears that his permanent illness cleared, as he was appointed a non-executive director of the East Anglian Ambulance service. A role he still holds according to, about us – board at http://eastanglianambulance.co.uk.

At the same time it appears that a false brigade myth was born which established that firefighter Y was responsible for the two complaints made against Mr Baker. The facts are possibly rather more qualified.
Firstly Y was not present, or a witness, to the consumption of alcohol by Mr Baker at the Lowestoft Christmas dinner. The complainants consisted of SubO John Tiffen and another unknown uniformed individual present at the Lowestoft bar at the same time. As for SubO Tiffen’s motivation to report the incident it seems he was particularly inflamed by Mr Baker’s verbal comments when questioned about his drinking in uniform. It seems that Mr Baker’s reply as to why he was drinking was, ‘its POR.’ When the complainant asked what POR was, it is alleged he said, ‘ Privilege of Rank.’ At the same time he may even have pointed to and tapped his epaulettes.

So what was Y’s involvement in all this?

On return to duty at Lowestoft he was approached by SubO Tiffen who told Y all about the incident and asked Y, as the local FBU official, to make a complaint about Mr Baker’s behaviour. It appears that Y advised SubO Tiffen that as he was not present at the time of the incident he could not make any complaint himself, and if SubO Tiffen felt so upset by the situation he should write out a statement himself. When SubO Tiffen wrote out a statement Y then passed the document up the line of command. So, Y’s involvement in the demise of CFO Baker was restricted to that of messenger person and no more.

Whatever, the departure of CFO Baker soured the brigade atmosphere with rumour and counter rumour running rife that centred on Y being the architect of Mr Bakers departure.

The replacement for CFO Baker was Malcolm Hewitt Alcock appointed mid way through 1997. To this also came the appointment of SA Smith as DCFO.

Approximately mid-way through 1997 Y was asked to act up to LFf by the then ADO Paul Hayden (Now DCFO in Norfolk and currently (Nov 2004) a candidate for CFO in Suffolk). At that time Y was the only person available with the LFf qualification and the rest of the watch were relatively inexperienced. For reasons associated with Y’s leave and holiday arrangements Y informed ADO Hayden that he declined the offer to act up. This was communicated to the brigades operational commander who then instructed ADO Hayden to order Y to act up. This he did, to which Y again reiterated that he did not wish to act up to LFf. In response ADO Hayden informed Y that he would be the subject of a formal complaint under the Fire Service (discipline) regulations. Presumably, for Disobedience to orders. Whatever, the threat to implement formal disciplinary action against Y came to nothing and Lowestoft was becalmed. Well at least for the time being.
The antecedents to Y being offered temporary promotion in September 1998 consisted of the following.
LFf PB booked sick 5 – 08 – 1998

At the time the Lowestoft station commander was ADO Tony Fuller (now a street warden in Lowestoft).

From 10-06-1998 onwards Y was acting as the accused friend of SubO X.

Prior to the offer of temporary promotion the offer made to Y was only to act up. Y’s response was that he would only accept the role if it was classified as temporary promotion, formalised by contractual agreement, and specified the term would be until PB returned to duty. This was reluctantly agreed to (hence doc 2 in this series) by ACFO Trevor Tinley. Mr Tinley is no longer in the employ of Suffolk Fire Service after he left the service in 2000? It seems that his early departure could be connected to his abusive attitude and harassment of a lower ranking officer. This is disputed and denied by some senior officers in Suffolk who claim he was not asked to leave and merely took early retirement. This was in fact the position taken by ADO Karl Rolfe when Mr Tinley’s controversial departure descended into banter around the tables in a station canteen. In defence of Mr Tinley, Karl Rolfe sternly commented words to the effect, ‘ Look lets get something straight he is not being forced out because he has harassed anybody, he has chosen to take early retirement.’

So what happened next in the simmering cauldron of Suffolk Fire service? Further developments will be continued on doc 4