The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 284 Reasons to Re-Elect Ruth Winters FBU President

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "Lowestoft Fire Station 999” http://www.blogomonster.com/bertwrentham/

For a rapid scroll back to the beginning link to
http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/


ANALYSIS DOC 283

THE FINAL PARAGRAPH

‘I do not intend to reverse my decision to appoint an assessor for the hearing due to be held later this month.’

It is proposed that Fire Service Command Power Syndrome Theory (FSCPST) practitioners cannot normally reverse their own stated position or decisions in the face of challenges made by inferior individuals.

1. To do so would be perceived as weakness and failure by the FSCPST mindset.

2. FSCPST practitioners believe their executive will must always be obeyed.

3. Reversal or cancellation of decisions, actions or policy dictated by a FSCPST practitioner will normally only be brought about by higher intervention.

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 283 FBU Industrial Action 2006

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X”
http://www.blogomonster.com/bertwrentham/

For a rapid scroll back to the beginning link to
http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/


Suffolk County Council

Fire Service

Mr C Hayward
Brigade Secretary
Fire Brigades Union

KES/DISC/Hyde/MLA
ACFO Seager
(01473) 588939
8th July 1999



Dear Mr Hayward,

APPOINTMENT OF ASSESSORS FOR SUMMARY HEARINGS

Thank you for your letter dated 24th June 1999 addressed to the Chief fire officer. I believe you were aware that the Chief Fire Officer was on annual leave until 6th July. He has passed your letter to me on his return for reply.

To a large extent, you raise the same queries as Mr Bill Rampling, who has also written on behalf of the Fire Brigades’ Union about this case. I am not certain whether or not Mr Rampling’s letter was on behalf of the Brigade Committee, but I presume he will bring my reply to your attention.

I believe my reply to Mr Rampling adequately explained why I have felt it necessary on this occasion to appoint an assessor for the hearing and I do not propose to restate my case here. This affair has already taken up an inordinate amount of my time; having to deal with almost daily correspondence and I can ill afford to have to constantly repeat myself.

In answer to your specific questions, I would answer as follows. (The numbers correspond to the numbers used in your letter, so you can relate each response to the relevant question):

1. I do not believe that the appointment of an assessor is “going against discipline procedures and guidance”.

2. It was my decision to appoint an assessor.

3. I have explained my reasons for appointing an assessor in my reply to Mr Rampling. I would refer you to that reply.

4. The decision is not related in any way to the involvement of the accused as an official of your Union. The decision has been made, as future decisions will be made, purely on the merits of the case.

5. I do not know, but the fact there is no mention of an assessor cannot be taken as evidence that it is prohibited.

6. It is more usual to appoint an assessor in such hearings, but I repeat, I do not believe that the use of an assessor is prohibited in summary hearings.

7. No, I cannot provide an example, but I would ask why is that relevant?

I do not intend to reverse my decision to appoint an assessor for the hearing due to be held later this month. I firmly believe that the best interests of the accused are served by having advice available to the Presiding Officer during the hearing. It would be unfair and unreasonable, in my opinion, to expose the Presiding Officer to the legal arguments we expect the accused friend to raise without giving him the facility to take advice. In order to comply with the Guidance to the Regulations, that advice must be given openly within the hearing itself, hence the appointment of the assessor.


Yours sincerely




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

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 282 Aldeburgh Fireman Vacancies

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X”
http://www.blogomonster.com/bertwrentham/

For a rapid scroll back to the beginning link to
http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/
or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at
http://www.feedster.com/


Isn’t it Ironic Doc 281?



How Assistant Chief Fire Officer Kenneth Seager (now 2005 retired) 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.

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”.

In fact this practice seems a common and recurrent theme amongst the leading characters at the helm of this particular Fire tale?

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 281 FBU Recall Conference 2006

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "Lowestoft Fire Station 999” http://www.blogomonster.com/bertwrentham/

For a rapid scroll back to the beginning link to
http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/


Suffolk County Council

Fire Service

A Wigglesworth Esq
Lowestoft Fire Station
Lowestoft
NR32 2QA
KES/DISC/Hyde/MLA
ACFO Seager
(01473) 588939
8th July 1999



Dear Mr Wigglesworth,

FIRE SERVICES (DISCIPLINE) REGULATIONS, 1985

Thank you for your letter dated 17th June. I believe you were aware that I was on annual leave at the time. I am now in a position to be able to reply.

Firstly, an apology. You are correct, of course, in pointing out that your letter of 4th June is not related to the case against Mr Hyde. I apologise that the reply you received assumed that the letter was about the Hyde case. I am sure you will understand that the amount of correspondence from you I have had to deal with has caused this error. I will reply separately to your questions about your grievance, currently suspended, once I have taken advice on how best to proceed.

I am puzzled by the terminology you use in the fourth paragraph of your letter of 17th June. It would be very helpful if you could use plain English so that I could better understand the points you make.

Notwithstanding, I believe you are challenging my reply to the letter of 5th June. Again, much confusion stems from the terminology you insist on using which I believe does not help matters at all.

Let me state as plainly as I can: I do not believe that I am required to divulge the name of the complainant as you continue to insist that I do. I refer you once again to page two of the Guidance to the Fire Services (Discipline) Regulations, 1985, paragraph seven, which spells out the three basic requirements of natural justice in Employment Law. I repeat, again, I believe I have acted throughout in compliance with the three stated principles. If you disagree, you must put your concerns before the Presiding Officer on 20th July for him to decide the matter.

On the matter of the documents, I can confirm that all the documents served on Mr Hyde with the Charge sheet remain available to the Presiding Officer to use in presenting the Brigade’s case. The service of supporting documents following the issue of a charge sheet is dealt with on page nine of the same Guidance referred to earlier. Again I repeat, I believe I have acted throughout in compliance with the Guidance given.

One final point. It is arrogant of you to assume anything about agreement, or otherwise, between us. I am prepared to stand by my decisions in this case, but only where those decisions have been explicitly expressed in writing to you.


Yours sincerely




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