The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 287 Suffolk Firefighter Kit for Sale

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
Suffolk FBU
Ipswich
Suffolk
LMH/CEH/HQ.10
9th July 1999



Dear Mr Hayward,

RE: FIRE SERVICES (DISCIPLINE) REGULATIONS

I’m sorry I didn’t take the opportunity to discuss your letter dated 15th June when we met last week. It might have been easier to have had a chat face to face. I don’t think there is any value in being drawn into a lengthy exchange of correspondence on this issue. I will therefore, deal briefly with the main points in your letter.

I’m afraid that I don’t accept your view that any complaint must be referred for investigation. It is quite clear that a preliminary view must be taken before referring the matter for investigation. I have reached the view after interviewing CFO Alcock and DCFO Smith that there does not appear to be a matter requiring investigation. You say that Mr Seager carried out an investigation under the procedures into allegations against ADO Saward and DO Hodge. I have checked this point with him and he has confirmed that he merely carried out a preliminary investigation in the same way as I have. His letter to you 1 June confirms this.

From my preliminary inquiries I have been unable to verify your argument that MR smith gave evidence which he did not believe to be true. He was not giving evidence of fact; he was (in response to a question) giving an opinion, which subsequently ( in another case) after receiving legal advice he considered was not the correct view.

You appear to have misunderstood my point about the disciplinary charges in Mr Wigglesworth’s case, meaning that his grievance would be held in abeyance. I merely meant that once a charge had been laid it would be inappropriate to consider the grievance until the charge had been dealt with. This had nothing to do with the “status quo” provision.

I do not believe that the rules for principal officers should be different to the rules for lower ranks, whether FBU members or not, and I do not believe they have been in this case. It is noted that ADO Saward and DO Hodge were treated exactly the same as CFO Alcock and DCFO smith. I am advised that in several cases involving lower ranks where a preliminary investigation has indicated that an offence has not been committed the matter is not referred for formal investigation under the Regulations.

Yours sincerely

Lin Homer

Chief Executive

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 286 Bovingdon Fire Station

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/


12th July 1999

During the morning Sub Officer received a telephone call at Lowestoft Fire Station. The caller was Divisional Officer Graham Smith who wanted to discuss matters privileged to the defence team of Firefighter Hyde ahead of the hearing planned for 20th July 1999.

In particular, DO Smith was very blunt and keen to discuss the line of questioning that Sub Officer Wigglesworth intended to pursue. The latter politely advised DO Smith that he could not engage in the discussion of matters privileged solely to the defence.

Sub Officer Wigglesworth also suggested that DO Smith’s behaviour was inappropriate and abuse of authority. The matters he wished to pursue were beyond his remit and solely of interest and authority for the nominated presiding officer. At that point DO Smith abruptly, and with the usual and typical brand of name-calling ended the conversation.

For Sub Officer Wigglesworth this was not the first experience of DO Smith seeking to obtain information privileged to the defence in a Suffolk Fire Service discipline case. Much the same had been tried out by DO Smith in the Firefighter Faiers hearing some time earlier.

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 287 Lowestoft Fire Bug

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
Suffolk FBU
Ipswich
Suffolk

LMH/CEH/HQ.10

9th July 1999



Dear Mr Hayward,

RE: FIRE SERVICES (DISCIPLINE) REGULATIONS

I’m sorry I didn’t take the opportunity to discuss your letter dated 15th June when we met last week. It might have been easier to have had a chat face to face. I don’t think there is any value in being drawn into a lengthy exchange of correspondence on this issue. I will therefore, deal briefly with the main points in your letter.

I’m afraid that I don’t accept your view that any complaint must be referred for investigation. It is quite clear that a preliminary view must be taken before referring the matter for investigation. I have reached the view after interviewing CFO Alcock and DCFO Smith that there does not appear to be a matter requiring investigation. You say that Mr Seager carried out an investigation under the procedures into allegations against ADO Saward and DO Hodge. I have checked this point with him and he has confirmed that he merely carried out a preliminary investigation in the same way as I have. His letter to you 1 June confirms this.

From my preliminary inquiries I have been unable to verify your argument that MR smith gave evidence which he did not believe to be true. He was not giving evidence of fact; he was (in response to a question) giving an opinion, which subsequently ( in another case) after receiving legal advice he considered was not the correct view.

You appear to have misunderstood my point about the disciplinary charges in Mr Wigglesworth’s case, meaning that his grievance would be held in abeyance. I merely meant that once a charge had been laid it would be inappropriate to consider the grievance until the charge had been dealt with. This had nothing to do with the “status quo” provision.

I do not believe that the rules for principal officers should be different to the rules for lower ranks, whether FBU members or not, and I do not believe they have been in this case. It is noted that ADO Saward and DO Hodge were treated exactly the same as CFO Alcock and DCFO smith. I am advised that in several cases involving lower ranks where a preliminary investigation has indicated that an offence has not been committed the matter is not referred for formal investigation under the Regulations.

Yours sincerely

Lin Homer

Chief Executive