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.