The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 183 Lowestoft Retained Firefighter

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X" http://www.angelfire.com/droid/thesuffolkhydeaffair/subOX/

Thompsons
Solicitors
CONGRESS HOUSE
GREAT RUSSELL STREET
LONDOM
WC1B 3LW
DX 35722 BLOOMSBURY

TEL 0171 637 9761
FAX 0171 637 0000

Fax 0181-546 5187

CDJ/HYDE/Y99/60025
Mr A Wigglesworth
10 Somerleyton Road
Lowestoft

By Post only

18 May, 1999

Dear Mr Wigglesworth,

I have now received the tapes of your disciplinary tribunal. I have transcribed, verbatim a passage from DCFO smith’s evidence as follows:

"My view is that there is a grievance procedure, the grievance procedure in Suffolk has a status quo provision which means that all he needed to do was to invoke the grievance procedure and his pay wouldn’t have been stopped it would have been put on hold until such time as the grievance was heard. The grievance procedure was explained to him in the letter, and I don’t consider that when you have (that) all that process still to go through and if, as we were led to believe, he thought there was a realistic prospect of not having his money docked, I don’t think that excuses being rude to a member of staff."

This is of considerable interest. You have seen the subsequent letter that I received from DCFO Smith in relation to Mr Hyde’s case. In that letter, he expresses a view which is entirely contradictory to that expressed in the evidence above.

DCFO Smith may maintain that the stance given at the hearing was his genuine belief at the time. However, it does seem strange that the view expressed in his letter entirely accords with what actually happened in your case when you were advised that the Brigade were going to deduct your wages and, despite the fact that you lodged a grievance, that deduction went ahead. That being so, the DCFO’s evidence is entirely inconsistent with the Brigade’s practice before the DCFO gave evidence and with the DCFO’s letter after he gave evidence.

Of course, if the evidence given by the DCFO was false, then there may have been an offence against discipline.

Yours sincerely


Craig Jones
For THOMPSONS