The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 111 Lowestoft Peeping Tom

Lowestoft Fire station
PO Box 54
Lowestoft
NR 32 2QA
16th April 1999
Dear Mr Wigglesworth,
On the 29th January 1999 I was at home with my daughter in our sitting room. It was dark and we had a light on and the television. Something made me look to the window. I saw a figure in the darkness looking at me, this frightened me and I called out to my husband who was in another room.
He came to me and I said someone is in the garden looking through the window. He then went and opened the front door. I then got up and stood behind my husband at the door, I noticed that someone was running away. My husband went after him and I noticed that it was Mr Saward. A conversation took place and Mr Saward then handed my husband a letter. I hope this is an answer to your questions regarding this event, posed during our conversation on 15th April 1999
Yours faithfully
Gail Hyde

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 110 Suffolk FBU Secretary

GA

16 APR 1999

THE FIRE BRIGADES UNION

Bradley House
68 Coombe Road
Kingston Upon Thames
Surrey KT2 7AE

Telephone 081 541 1765

APPLICATION FOR LEGAL AID
IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 25 (3)

Use this form to apply for Legal Aid for ANY matter connected with your employment OTHER than an accident or illness.

This form should be read carefully and the fullest possible information given in the spaces provided. It should then be handed to your Branch Secretary or Chairperson to complete Part II. It is then his/her responsibility to forward it to Head office for action. If Legal Aid is granted the solicitor will be in touch with you direct to advise you of the next steps to be taken in the matter.

Do not delay in returning this form if you are unable to answer some of the questions.

PART I

1. Full Name (in capitals). MICHAEL JOHN HYDE.

2. Address. LOWESTOFT, SUFFOLK, UK.

3. Telephone. 01502 403432.

4. Branch. LOWESTOFT FIRE STATION.

5. Employing Authority. SUFFOLK FIRE SERVICE. LOWESTOFT FIRE STATION.

6. Date of joining service. 1st OCTOBER 1974.

7. Your rank and how long held. F/F

8. Details of matter for which legal aid is required. Full details must be given and relevant documents attached to this form.

I have been charged with "Conduct Prejudicial to Discipline" on 12th April 1999. Also I have legal problems with the County Solicitor regarding this matter. I have been in consultation with Mr Craig Jones of Thompson’s and barrister Mr Gary Morton. They advise me to get legal aid urgently, as there are deadlines with some matters that would be to my disadvantage if not dealt with quickly within the next few days. Please can you process this application with the utmost urgency. I have a very thick file regarding these matters and will send them to the solicitors direct if you do not mind. As time is running tight. Please could you contact me on my mobile if we need to talk.

I wish to apply for legal assistance on the basis of the particulars given above. I have no solicitor acting for me in relation to this matter and hereby authorise you to instruct a Solicitor to act on my behalf if legal aid is granted. I confirm that I am and was a member of the F.B.U. on the date of the accident/incident/contracted illness as stated above. I understand that I am obliged to give the full facts to the Union and the unions nominated Solicitors, and that if I fail to do so or give false misleading facts, legal assistance will be withdrawn and I shall be responsible for the costs incurred by the Union and any party to litigation in which the Union has supported me. I understand that a report of my case upon its conclusion may be published by the Union.

Signed M.J. Hyde Date 16-4-99

PART II

To be completed by the Branch Secretary or Chairperson who is responsible for passing the form to the Brigade Secretary or chairperson for endorsement and forwarding to Head Office.
Branch Secretary signature M. J. Hyde

PART III
Endorsed by Brigade Chairperson C. Hayward

PS: STEVE BRINKLEY IS AWARE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES. YOU CAN VERIFY WITH HIM IF NECESSARY

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 109 CFO M Alcock

Lowestoft Fire station
PO Box 54
Lowestoft
NR 32 2QA

Chief Fire Officer
M.H. Alcock
Fire Service HQ
Colchester Road
Ipswich
IP4 4SS

Private & Confidential

15th April 1999

Dear Sir,

On Tuesday 13th April 1999 I was engaged on official Fire Brigades Union duties at County Hall at a discipline hearing with elected members. I was allocated a conference room along with Mr Wigglesworth, his solicitor Mr Craig Jones and barrister Mr Gary Morton. Lunch at approximately 1150 hrs, Mr Wigglesworth and myself went to the county canteen for lunch, we returned to the room at 1250 hrs. My case file notes were left in a leather bag in the room.

I took my bag into the tribunal hearing room after lunch. At approximately 1430 hrs when we had adjourned to another room I had occasion to look at files in my bag. It was found that my ring binder was missing and my papers were in disarray. I went back to the room where I had left my bag to see if I could find my ring binder. After a search I found my ring binder and other papers in Mr Wigglesworth’s bag that was still in the room.

I am very concerned and upset as the papers and files that had been rifled are pertinent to a future case regarding myself. I would like this to be investigated urgently and also I would very much like to have conference with you.

Yours sincerely

MJ Hyde

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 108 Birmingham City Council Chief Executive Lin Homer

Faxed 15-499 1325 hrs (NSTS)

Lowestoft Fire station
PO Box 54
Lowestoft
NR 32 2QA

Linda Homer
Chief Executive
County Hall
Ipswich
Suffolk
IP4 2JS

Private & Confidential

14th April 1999

Dear Lin Homer,

On Tuesday 13th April 1999 I was on official Fire Brigades Union duties at County Hall engaged in a discipline hearing with elected members. I was allocated a conference room along with the accused his solicitor Mr Craig Jones and barrister Mr Gary Morton. Lunch at approximately 1150 hrs, the accused and I went to the county canteen for lunch, we returned at 1250 hrs. My case file notes were left in a leather bag in the room.

I took my bag into the tribunal hearing room after lunch. At approximately 1430 hrs I had occasion to look at files in my bag. It was found that my ring binder was missing and my papers were in disarray. I went back to the room where I had left my bag to see if I could find my ring binders. After a search I found my ring binder and other papers in the accused’s bag.

I am very concerned and upset as the papers that had been rifled are pertinent to a future case regarding myself. I would like this to be investigated urgently and also I would very much like to have conference with you.

Yours sincerely

MJ Hyde

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 107 Suffolk County Legal Department

Events 13th April 1999

Suffolk County Council County Hall
St Helen Court Ipswich Suffolk

The SubO X Prosecution hearing was adjourned for lunch.

All parties departed from the council chamber to take lunch and further conference.

SubO X and Firefighter M. Hyde, after consultation with Craig Jones and Gary Morton, took lunch at the

Suffolk County Cafeteria. Already present their were the prosecution team Divisional Officer Colin Hodge and Richard Jory. The latter left, presumably to return to County Hall before SubO X and Firefighter M. Hyde had finished their meals.

As SubO X and Firefighter M. Hyde made their return to County Hall they passed by window of the consulting room provided for the defence team in which personal effects, and documents had been placed. Passing the window Firefighter M. Hyde remarked that he thought he had seen somebody exiting the defence team consulting room. From the momentary glance and the image of a person’s back he was pretty sure it was not anybody from SubO X’s defence team.

Prompted by concern SubO X and Firefighter M. Hyde hurriedly made their necessary de-tour through County Hall reception back to the defence team consulting room.

On entering the defence team room no other person was found to be present. Nevertheless upon inspection of personal effects there was a suspicion that disturbance had taken place. Later the same day Firefighter M. Hyde observed that his briefcase containing personal documents, brought for inspection and the opinion of Craig Jones, had been interfered with. It would appear that documents in the briefcase that were organised in chronological order had been rifled through and returned in an ad-hoc, and random fashion. Effectively, they had been thrown back into the briefcase. It might be assumed the person responsible was in a hurry and had found it necessary to throw the documents back into the briefcase in a rush and without care. As all the other members of the defence team had chosen not to leave any documentation in the consulting room over lunch it would seem that only Firefighter M. Hyde’s property could be confirmed as definitely interfered with.

On reporting the matter to Craig Jones the matter was reported to Suffolk County Council solicitor Mr Chris Jackson who found it funny and treated the matter with some amusement. The latter suggested it was the person’s own fault if they had left property laying about and unguarded.

Craig Jones instructed Firefighter M. Hyde to report the matter formally to senior Suffolk County Council officers.

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 106 FSYTA Ipswich

Prosecution Transcript Released 13th April 1999

23.3.99

Interview at Lowestoft Station

Present: D.O. Smith, ADO Meelan, Sub.O. Wigglesworth, Ff Hyde

Start at: 1445

G.S.
Firefighter Hyde I must caution you that you do not have to say anything, but anything you do say will be recorded and may be used in evidence at a subsequent hearing. Do you understand?

M.H.
Yes.

G.S.
When were you first aware that the temporary promotion arrangements on your watch were being reconsidered?

M.H.
No comment.

G.S.
At a meeting on 19/01/99 between yourself and ADO Saward were you abusive in your responses to Mr Saward?

M.H.
What was the date again?

G.S.
19.1.99.

M.H.
No comment.

G.S.
At the same meeting did you say words to the effect of "You have picked on the wrong one and had better be careful because you would come after him and win?"

M.H.
No comment.

G.S.
Did you receive a memo from ADO Saward, dated 20/01/99, instructing you to revert to the rank of Ff. Effective 01/02/99?
Firefighter Hyde and Sub Officer Wigglesworth leave the room for a discussion at 1452 hours. They re-enter at 1454 hours.

G.S.
Did you receive a memo from ADO Saward, dated 20/01/99, instructing you to revert to the rank of Ff. Effective 01/02/99?

M.H.
No comment.

G.S.
Did you revert to the rank of Ff. On 1/2/99?

M.H.
No Comment.

G.S.
Did you revert to the rank of Ff. On 04/02/99?

M.H.
No comment.

G.S.
Did you seek advice on this issue and replace your rank markings on either the 4th or 5th Febuary 1999?

M.H.
No comment.

G.S.
Have you at any time received advice to disobey the written order, dated 21.1.99 from ADO Saward to yourself?

M.H.
No comment.

G.S.
That is all the prepared questions. Is there anything you would like to add or any statement you would like to make?

M.H.
No.

Finished 1500

The above is a true record
E. G. Meelan
Graham Douglas. Smith

The above is a copy of the contemporaneous hand-written transcript which differs from the later grammar refined typed version. The motive to modify the transcript and produce differential records is ?
The contemporaneous defence transcript can be seen at Doc ??

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 105 Halesworth Fire Station Manager

SUFFOLK FIRE SERVICE
Note for Case


Date 10 February 1999

Subject Accident to Ff Farr; 3 February 1999

Officer ADO Campion (AKA The Pie Man/Pilsbury Dough Man)

Observations

Whilst in attendance at an incident at the Hippodrome Bingo Hall on 3 February 1999, I was made aware of an accidental injury to Ff Farr.

The nature of the event was that Ff Farr had been instructed to disconnect a length of Hosereel tubing from Normanshurst 01 appliance & reconnect it to Normanshurst 02. The reason for this was to ensure the utilisation of only one set of Hosereel tubing for the production of Foam.

As the Hosereel coupling was disconnected, Ff Farr received a discharge of liquid into the eyes. First aid measures were administered by Ff Pettitt, on my instructions. Following this Ff Farr stated that his eyes were stinging but that he would remain at the incident.

I instructed SubO Tiffen (Oic of the Incident) to ensure that the Accident was reported to Fire Service Control in accordance with Brigade procedures & that the required reports were completed on his return to Station.
It became obvious, upon investigating, that the Hosereel tubing was still pressurised from Firefighting operations when the coupling was separated, thus a discharge occurred.

T/LFf Hyde, who was the Driver/Pump Operator of Normanshurst 01, seemed unaware that this state of affairs (although the gauges on the Appliance should have indicated it). On questioning him regarding the remaining pressure in the Hosereel he stated that " I would have thought that someone would have released it by opening the Branch."

It appeared when the accident occurred, that a number of personnel (including the T/LFf) treated it with some amusement. This resulted in momentary bad feeling between Ff Farr & T/LFf Hyde, but this was resolved quickly by pointing out to them all that such events were dangerous & required more careful handling in the future.

A check on the status of T/LFf Hydes uniform on 4 February 1999, in company with T/ADO Saward, shows that his helmet continues to carry LFf rank markings. I marked this helmet with a small black dot on its rear skirt area.

A.D. campion ADO


This document was first observed by Firefighter Hyde on 13th April 1999. There is no independent verification to the dated attached.

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 104 Lowestoft Fire Station Manager

SUFFOLK FIRE SERVICE

TO: Chief Fire Officer From: ADO Saward

Date: 10 February 1999

Instruction to Sub Officer Tiffen

I had given verbal and written instruction to Temporary Leading Firefighter Hyde that he was to revert to his substantive rank of Firefighter, with effect from 1 February 1999. This memorandum was copied to Sub Officer Tiffen.

Notification of a personal accident to a crew member on 3 February indicated that Hyde was still performing the role of Leading Firefighter.

I telephoned Sub Offcier Tiffen at his home address at noon on Thursday 4 February and asked him to clarify the position.

I was told that Hyde had told him that as he had invoked the grievance procedure, the status quo prevailed, and that he would hold the rank pending the determination of the grievance.

I told Sub Officer Tiffen that this was not the Brigade’s view and that as I was unable to speak to Hyde that evening, he should instruct Hyde to perform the duties of Firefighter, when he reported for duty.

When I was in my office on the morning of Friday 5 February, Sub O Tiffen came to see me and told me that he had passed on my instruction to Hyde, who had removed the rank markings.

However, later that evening Hyde had stated that he had spoken to FBU representatives who had stated that he should reinstate them , which he had done.

Sub O Tiffen did not wish to make an issue of the matter and permitted Hyde to perform the duties of Leading Firefighter for the remainder of the shift.

On the evening of 5 February I heard the grievance of Firefighter Hyde and ruled that the previously notified instruction should stand. I later confirmed that decision to Sub O Tiffen.

G. E. Saward
Assistant Divisional Officer


This document was first observed by Firefighter Hyde on 13th April 1999. There is no independent verification to the dated attached.

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 103 Graham Saward Fire Consultant

NOTE FOR FILE

At 1800 hours on Friday 29 January I drove to the home address of T/L Ff Hyde to deliver a letter offering him an appointment to hear his grievance, which he had placed on my desk that day.

Whilst walking back to my car after putting the letter through the letter box, I heard the house door open and then Hyde shouted "too scared to knock on the door then?"

I turned and said "hello Mick, no I didn’t want to disturb you." He then said, "what are you doing skulking around her." I replied "I am not skulking around, I am just delivering a letter for you."

He had the letter in his hand and said "what’s this then." I said, "it is my acknowledgement of your grievance and offering you a date and time to hear the grievance."

He said, "who is coming on Tuesday." I replied "what do you mean?" He said, "you know what I mean." I said, "I’m sorry, I don’t know what you mean." He then said "I am expecting someone to come to see me on Tuesday morning."
I then asked "who do you expect to come to see you on Tuesday," to which he relied "someone to hear my grievance."

I said " I am your first stage grievance officer and that is what the letter is about, I am offering you an appointment to hear your grievance."

He then said "Okay right then." I said "goodnight Mick" and left

This document was undated and without any independent verification as to when it was drafted, or Affidavit provided by the author. As to who the author is, well it is presumed to be T/ADO Graham Saward. It was first observed by Firefighter Hyde on 13th April 1999.

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 102 ADO Graham Saward

NOTE FOR FILE
Supplied to Firefighter Hyde 13th April 1999

On Tuesday 19 January I spoke to T/L Ff. Hyde regarding his temporary promotion.

I told him that the circumstances had changed since he was promoted in that the period of absence of L Ff. Brown was now expected to continue for some months.

In such cases my policy was to share the temporary promotion among personnel on the station, particularly those assessed as suitable for promotion, and therefore, I intended to reduce him to his substantive rank of Firefighter, with effect from Monday 1 February.

T/L Ff. Hyde became abusive and said that I couldn’t do that to him as he had a letter from ADO Fuller which said that he was promoted until L Ff. Brown returned to full operational duties.

I was aware of the memorandum and had taken advice before proceeding with my proposal.
He asked who was behind this, who had told me to do it. I told him that it was my decision, made purely on the grounds of equality and fairness.

He went on to say that I had picked on the wrong one and I had better be careful because he would come after me and he would win.

I warned him to moderate his attitude and informed him that I would confirm my intention to him in writing, which I did in a memorandum, dated 20 January.

This document was undated and without any independent verification as to when it was drafted or Affidavit provided by the author. As to who the author is, well it is presumed to be T/ADO Graham Saward. It was first observed by Firefighter Hyde on 13th April 1999.

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 101 Suffolk Fire and Rescue service headquarters

Interested by what happens in the UK Fire Service. If so why not take a look at the SubO X aol journal at http://journals.aol.co.uk/nameandshameuk/SubOX

SUFFOLK FIRE SERVICE

FIRE SERVICE (DISCIPLINE) REGULATIONS, 1985

CHARGE SHEET AND RELEVANT DOCUMENTS

To: Investigating Officer
Brigade headquarters

Rank, number, name and station of accused member.
Firefighter Michael HYDE, Brigade No 566, Station 16, Normanshurst


I certify that the Charge Sheet and the relevant documents detailed below were served on the above named member of the Brigade on the date shown.

1. NOTE FOR FILE (unsigned and undated) compiled by T/ADO Saward.

2. Memorandum from T/ADO Saward to T/LFf Hyde dated 20th January 1999. (see Doc 25 )

3. Memorandum from T/LF Hyde to T/ADO Saward 29th January 1999. (see doc 31 )

4. Memorandum from ADO Fuller to Ff M Hyde dated 25th September 1998. (see Doc2 )

5. Letter from ADO Saward to Mr M Hyde dated 29th January 1999. (see doc 33 )

6. NOTE FOR FILE (unsigned and undated) compiled by T/ADO Saward.

7. Memorandum from T/ADO Saward to Chief Fire Officer dated 6th February 1999. (see doc 41 )

8. Memorandum from T/ADO Saward to Chief Fire Officer dated 10th February 1999.

9. Note entitled "Meeting between Ff M Hyde and ADO Saward" (unsigned and undated) compiled by ADO E Smith. (see doc 38)

Note for case dated 4th February 1999 compiled by ADO Campion.

Transcript of interview between DO Smith and Ff Hyde 23rd March 1999.

Contemporaneous notes of interview between DO Smith and Ff Hyde made by ADO Meelan on23rd March 1999.

Signature of Officer serving

R Middleton D/O

Rank and Number DO 575

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 100 Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service Headquarters

Part II


QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED BY MEMBER CHARGED

Admission of Denial of Charges

Do you admit or deny the charge(s) against you? If you admit the charge(s), write "Admit" opposite the number of the charge. If you deny it, write "Deny".

I Charge No 1 I Charge No 3

I Charge No 2 I Charge No 4

You may submit an explanation in writing. If you wish to do so, write it below and continue overleaf if necessary. You are warned that any explanation you may give may be used in evidence.





Representation

Do you wish to select a member of the Fire Brigade or a member of any other Brigade to assist you in presenting your case?

Answer YES or NO

Witnesses

Do you wish to call any witnesses on your behalf, including character witnesses? You can call witnesses even if you admit the charge.
Answer YES or NO

If so please give their names and addresses:
(Continue overleaf if necessary)

Date……………………………….


Signature of member charged…………………………..


Signature of Investigating Officer Ken Seager ACFO

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 99 Suffolk Fire service Discipline case

SUFFOLK FIRE SERVICE

FIRE SERVICE (DISCIPLINE) REGULATIONS, 1985

CHARGE SHEET

Part 1
Full name of accused: Michael John Hyde

Rank, number and station: Firefighter, No 566, Station 16, Normanshurst

Age, rate of pay/retaining fee and date of appointment: Age: 44

Pay: £1,717 per month Date joined: 1 October 1974

Under the Code of Offences against Discipline contained in the Schedule of the Fire Services (Discipline) regulations 1985, you are charged as follows:

Under paragraph 14 with

(i) Title of alleged offence: Conduct prejudicial to discipline

(ii) Particulars of alleged offence including time, date and place:

In that you failed to carry out instructions issued on separate occasions by temporary Assistant divisional Officer Saward and Sub Officer Tiffen to revert in rank from temporary Leading Firefighter, to Firefighter, which actions are, or are likely to be prejudicial to the discipline of the brigade.

(iii) Name and addresses of witnesses in support of charge:

T/ADO Saward – Normanshurst
Sub Officer J Tiffen – Normanshurst
ADO Campion – Normanshurst
ADO E Smith – Normanshurst

You are ordered, within 7 days after service to this Notice to you, to complete Part II and return it to the Investigating Officer, stating whether you admit or deny the charge(s)

Date 12th April 1999


Name and signature of Investigating Officer……………… K Seager


Signature of member charged……………………………………………

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 98 Suffolk Day Crewing

Events 13th April 1999

Suffolk County Council County Hall

St Helen Court Ipswich Suffolk

The SubO X Prosecution hearing was entering into the second day and set to reconvene at 09.30 hrs.

SubO X and Firefighter M. Hyde were in attendance at County Hall at about 09.00 hrs. The latter’s presence was to assist SubO X’s defence team, Thompson’s solicitor Mr Craig Jones and barrister Mr Gary Morton.

The defence team were in conference on the ground floor in a ante-room at County Hall at approximately 09.05- 09.30 hrs. At about 09.15 hrs there was a muffled knock on the door. As the knock was such a weak affair nobody in the ante-room responded. However, the knocker on the other side must have eventually got fed up with waiting and opened to door to reveal himself. Still not really being taken notice of he summoned up a few coughs until one of the defence team said, ‘this is private what are you doing in here.’ It was Divisional Officer Robert Middleton who had a brown A4 envelope in his hand. Sorry, to interrupt but I need to see Mr Hyde to serve him discipline charge sheets and associated papers.

When asked who asked given him the authority to enter the defence team private area he said he was just following ACFO Seager’s instructions. And that, ‘don’t shoot me I am only the postman.’ Indeed another popular metaphor often employed by Fire Service Discipline prosecution service agents.

Whatever the conference was abruptly brought to a halt and stalled until Divisional Officer Bob Middleton had completed his service of charges on Firefighter Hyde.

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 97 Firetalk - Fire Rhetoric - Fire Discourse - Fire Narrative

FIRETALK

THE RHETORIC OF FIRE SERVICE COMMAND
POWER SYNDROME THEORY (FSCPST)
PRACTITIONERS EXTRACTS FROM DOC 95
DCFO. KENNETH EDWARD SEAGER

Emergent Proposition

FSCPST Practitioners at high position in the organisation hierarchy utilise personal first person tendencies in correspondence to effect Command Power authority. Examples in Doc 95:

Para 1
I refer to the Regulation 7 notice served on you on 1st March 1999, and the subsequent investigation carried out on my behalf by Divisional Officer Graham Smith.

I refer……………………….The author demonstrates power to make the recipient submit to his initial act?
……………Regulation 7 notice served on you………………………….

opportunity is taken remind the recipient that he was considered to have stepped outside the authors value system to the point that disciplinary investigation was required?

……………………………..investigation carried out on my behalf……………The author unequivocally notifies the reader of his personal power to make things and people jump to his command?

Para 2
Having studied the findings of DO Smith’s investigation very closely, and having considered carefully how best to deal with your case, I have decided that I will NOT bring a formal charge or charges against you on this occasion.

Bold type is used to increase the power of the message conveyed.
………………I have decided that I will NOT bring a formal charge or charges against you on this occasion………………

……….I, I alone, it is me! the author conveys who has made the decision. No one but me? Not only that on this occasion, the author signals that it is his power not to issue a charge or charges. Does the recipient now owe a debt to the author for such mercy?

Para 3
I must point out, however, that I am satisfied that your actions in this matter have fallen well short of the standards expected of a Sub Officer, and at the very least your failure to seek advice when faced with an overt challenge to your authority as watch officer borders on a neglect of duty.
I must point out…………………….I am satisfied ………………your authority……….neglect of duty.

So despite the author being merciful he further reiterates that the recipient is in his eyes inadequate and incompetent. Indeed to the point that therecipients conduct borders on neglect. And the use of the word neglect is only available to one party in the UK Fire Service. To use neglect in correspondence is a sign of high Command Power.

Para 4
I shall be discussing with the Assistant Chief Fire Officer (Operations) what managerial action we should take in your case to address these shortcomings. In the near future, I shall be summoning you to an interview at these Headquarters at which I intend to make my displeasure known and to advise you of the managerial actions we intend to take.

I shall be discussing…………………………your case………………to address these shortcomings…………………………….I shall be summoning you ………………..I intend to make my displeasure known & advise……………………….actions we…..

The first person usage continues to reiterate the positive power source and controller position of the author. As throughout the recipient is shrouded in negative and pejorative words. The Command Power practitioner is all-positive, while the lower order subject is valued in the negative. And in isolation the word we is introduced for a conflated Command Power action.

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 96 Assistant Divisional Officer Tiffen

Follow up on Doc 95

Re the letter of notification as to no formal discipline action, to Sub Officer John Tiffen. Would it be too much to expect a similar letter to be making its way to Ff Hyde? Perhaps he might return home the same day to find one?

After all unlawful liability of a failure to give contractual notice had been admitted.

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 95 Suffolk Firefighter

Suffolk County Council

Fire Service

Sub Officer J A Tiffen
C/O Station16, Normanshurst
Lowestoft

KES/Tiffen/SIS
ACFO Seager
(01473) 588939
12th April 1999

Dear Sub Officer Tiffen,

Fire services (Discipline) Regulations, 1985

I refer to the Regulation 7 notice served on you on 1st March 1999, and the subsequent investigation carried out on my behalf by Divisional Officer Graham Smith.

Having studied the findings of DO Smith’s investigation very closely, and having considered carefully how best to deal with your case, I have decided that I will NOT bring a formal charge or charges against you on this occasion.

I must point out, however, that I am satisfied that your actions in this matter have fallen well short of the standards expected of a Sub Officer, and at the very least your failure to seek advice when faced with an overt challenge to your authority as watch officer borders on a neglect of duty.

I shall be discussing with the Assistant Chief Fire Officer (Operations) what managerial action we should take in your case to address these shortcomings. In the near future, I shall be summoning you to an interview at these Headquarters at which I intend to make my displeasure known and to advise you of the managerial actions we intend to take.

I enclose 2 copies of this letter. One is for you to retain and I would suggest you pass it to your Union representative. The other copy should be signed where shown and returned to me in the envelope provided.
If you have any queries about the content of this letter, please contact me at these Headquarters.

Yours sincerely

K. E. Seager,
Assistant Chief Fire Officer (Technical)
Brigade Investigating Officer

Enc 2 copy letters
…………………………………………………………………………………………..........................................

From: Sub Officer J A Tiffen

Date…………………………….

I have received a copy of this letter dated 12th April 1999. I confirm that I fully understand the contents thereof.

Signed…………………………

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 94 Station Officer John Tiffen

12th April 1999

From 09.30 hrs onwards Ff Hyde was in attendance at the Suffolk County Council Committee Room, St Helen Court, County Hall, Ipswich, Suffolk IP 4 2JS

This was for the purpose of assisting in the defence of SubO X.

At lunch he spoke to Sub Officer John Tiffen. John Tiffen said he had received a letter by hand delivery informing him that no further disciplinary (formal) action was to be taken against him with regard to Ff Hyde’s reversion/demotion in February 1999 (see doc 95).

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 93 Suffolk Fire Service Management Team

Administrators Notes Arising from Doc 92

Firstly, as Lin Homer has taken 33 days to make a 5 line reply to the letter of 6th March 1999, (see Doc 59 link below) it might be reasonable to suggest she has little interest in dealing with the concerns of her lower employees. Incidentally, the public promise in connection with such issues undertakes to reply to correspondence within 4 days. So, late by 29 days on this particular occasion. One wonders why?

One also wonders why Lin Homer devotes 24 of her 63-word single paragraph response to the issue of Ff Hyde being subject to Fire Service Discipline investigation.

As to the matter being dealt with by Deputy Chief fire Officer Smith? Well she seems pretty badly misguided on that (see Doc 51, 65 , 68 and 72 links below ) and has neglected entirely the purpose of Doc 59. As well as blatantly neglecting Firefighter Hyde’s contractual right for the grievance to proceed to a hearing before Suffolk County Council Elected members.

Overall Ff Hyde has made 4 applications to DCFO SASmith and 1 to Lin Homer for the grievance to proceed in line with contractual rights. Maybe that is more than reasonable?

Doc 51http://journals.aol.co.uk/nameandshameuk/TheSuffolkHydeAffair/entries/694

Doc 59 http://journals.aol.co.uk/nameandshameuk/TheSuffolkHydeAffair/entries/737

Doc 65 http://journals.aol.co.uk/nameandshameuk/TheSuffolkHydeAffair/entries/779

Doc 68 http://journals.aol.co.uk/nameandshameuk/TheSuffolkHydeAffair/entries/782

Doc 72 http://journals.aol.co.uk/nameandshameuk/TheSuffolkHydeAffair/entries/813

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 92 Jon Tiffen

Suffolk County Council

M Hyde Esq
Lowestoft

LMH/SMM/HQ10
8th April 1999

Dear Mr Hyde,

I refer to your letter of 6 March. I understand from the Chief fire Officer that you are currently under investigation in relation to two offences under the Fire service Discipline regulations and that as a result your grievance is being dealt with separately by Deputy Chief Fire Officer Smith. I am assured the matter will progress in accordance with the appropriate procedures.

Yours sincerely

Lin Homer
Chief Executive

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 91 Joseph Rowntree Foundation Research inspection Board

Suffolk County Council

Secretary and Solicitor

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
FIRST CLASS POST

M Hyde Esq
Lowestoft

6028/JCA/JEC
Miss Alexander
01473 584148
6th April 1999

Dear Sir,

RE: CASE NO. L0900306
MJ HYDE – V – M ALCOCK

I have received your letter dated 31 March 1999. I note that you have informed the Lowestoft County Court that the Defendant, namely Mr Alcock, Chief Fire Officer, admits that all the money is owed and that he has made a proposal for payment. This is not, in fact, the case.

Suffolk County Council admits that you are owed salary in lieu of notice. Mr Alcock has made no admissions whatsoever within the proceedings and you will recall that the offer of settlement by Suffolk County Council was dependent upon you withdrawing the case against Mr Alcock as he has no personal liability in this matter.
I have sent a copy of this letter to the Court today and I should be grateful if you would write to the Court and confirm that liability has not been admitted by Mr Alcock. You should simply state that you wish to withdraw the claim, there having been an offer of payment by your employers, Suffolk County Council.

Yours faithfully

Alexander

For K W Stevens
County Secretary and Solicitor

g:\fire\letters\mr hyde 6.4.99.doc/daron1

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 90 Lin Homer Birmingham City Councillor

Suffolk County Council

Secretary and Solicitor

By Fax: 01502 569319
The Chief Clerk
Lowestoft County Court
28 Gordon Road
Lowestoft
Suffolk NR32 1NL

LO900306
6028/JCA/JEC
Miss Alexander
01473 584148
6th April 1999

Dear Sirs,

RE: MICHAEL JOHN HYDE –v- M ALCOCK
LOWESTOFT COUNTY COURT – CASE NO. LO900306

I have received a letter dated 31 March 1999 from Mr Hyde, the plaintiff in the above matter. I note that Mr Hyde has informed the Court that "the Defendant admits that all the money is owed" by ticking box B in the request for Judgement section of form N0205A

This is not, in fact, the case and I enclose for your urgent attention copies of correspondence between Suffolk County Council, Mr Hyde’s employers and the plaintiff.

As you will note, Mr Hyde’s claim should properly have been made against Suffolk County Council as his employer, rather than the County’s Chief Fire Officer. In order to save the plaintiff the inconvenience of having to issue new proceedings it was agreed that the plaintiff would withdraw the case in consideration of Suffolk County Council settling his claim.

I look forward to hearing from you as a matter of urgency that Judgement has not been entered against Mr Alcock.

Yours faithfully

Alexander

For K W Stevens
County Secretary and Solicitor

g:\fire\letters\mr hyde 6.4.99.doc/daron1

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 89 Suffolk County Solicitor

Suffolk County Council

Secretary and Solicitor

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
FIRST CLASS POST

M Hyde Esq
Lowestoft
6028/JCA/JEC
Miss Alexander
01473 584148
1st April 1999
Dear Sir,

RE: CASE NO. L0900306
MJ HYDE – V – M ALCOCK

I write further to my letter of 26 March 1999. I now enclose a copy of a letter dated 31 March from the Lowestoft County Court advising me that you had not, as of the date of that letter, contacted the court since the issue of the summons.

As you will be aware, it is a condition precedent of the Suffolk County Council’s offer to settle your claim for unpaid salary that you contact the Court immediately to withdraw your action against the Chief Fire Officer.
I look forward to hearing from you as a matter of urgency that you have formally withdrawn your claim. You will need to do this by writing to the Lowestoft County Court, quoting the case number and I should be grateful to receive a copy of that letter in due course.

Once I have received confirmation from the Court that the case has been withdrawn I will advise the Fire Service Payroll Department in order that payment can be made to you as previously agreed.

Yours faithfully

Alexander

For K W Stevens
County Secretary and Solicitor

s:\personal services\fire\letters\mr hyde 1.4.99.doc/daron1

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 88 Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service

Overview of Events April 1999

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 87 Lowestoft Fire Station

Home Address
Lowestoft
NR 33

31. 03. 99

K.W. Stevens
County Solicitor
St Helens Court
County Hall
Ipswich

Dear Sir,

Please find enclosed a copy of my notice of withdrawl of County Court summons against Mr M. Alcock C.F.O. which, I have posted to the County Court Lowestoft today.

Yours faithfully

MJ Hyde