The Suffolk Hyde Affair

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 293 Ipswich Fire Station Disposal of Surplus Fire Equipment

2007-05-09T01:00:00.000-07:00

For more Suffuck Fire Service tales take your pick from:
Sunrise County Masons (blogomonster), http://www.blogomonster.com/blog/sunrise_county_masons
Swift to serve (my blogvoice) http://swifttoserve.myblogvoice.com/
The Suffolk Hyde Affair (Msn spaces) http://spaces.msn.com/members/TheSuffolkHydeAffair/
The Suffolk Hyde Affair (Blogspot) http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/
The Suffolk Hyde Affair (Msn groups) http://groups.msn.com/TheSuffolkHydeAffair
Suffolk Fire Bandits (egoweblog) http://bertblythburgh.egoweblog.com/
Suffolk Fire Society http://www.whitepage.com.au/bertblythburgh/
The Suffolk Fire tree http://thesuffolkfiretree.blogster.com/
Beccles Fire Station (bloghi)http://beccles-fire-station.bloghi.com/
The Suffolk Fire Experience (Blogspot) http://thesuffolkfireexperience.blogspot.com/
Suffolk Crucial Crew (newblog) http://users.newblog.com/bert_blythburgh/
Suffolk Firefighter (Blog UK) http://suffolkfirefighter.blog.co.uk
Bungay Fire Station (ebloggy) http://bungayfirestation.ebloggy.com/

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/

Tuesday 20th July 1999
SUFFOLK FIRE SERVICE
Brigade Headquarters
Colchester road
Ipswich
Suffolk
IP4 4SS

HEARING DAY!
A full Report coming to this site soon

SWIFT TO SERVE
Brigade motto

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 292 FBU report on CPD payments

2006-12-16T03:54:00.000-08:00

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out Beccles Fire Station "SubO X”
http://beccles-fire-station.bloghi.com

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/

SUFFOLK FIRE SERVICE

ACFO Technical
Brigade Headquarters
Ipswich
Extension: 8939

To: Sub Officer A. D. Wigglesworth

Cc: File

Date: 16 July 1999

FBU Representation, Mr. M. Hyde – Summary hearing 20 July 1999

Further to your enquiry of the Personnel Department regarding overtime payment for the hearing next week, I am writing to set out my understanding of your entitlement.

You will be a duty on behalf of the Fire Brigades’ Union, not the brigade. I have checked the documentation, and can confirm that, unlike the accused himself and the witnesses, you have not been ordered to attend the hearing. My view is that you have been chosen by Mr. Hyde to attend in an official capacity as a fire Brigades’ Union accused friend. Correspondence between us makes it clear that you have accepted his request.

This being so, I can see no reason to view this duty as in any way different to other Union duties you might perform. I am happy to grant you paid leave of absence from your workplace for the perfomance of these duties, but there is no obligation on the part of the fire authority to make any extra payment or time off in lieu arrangements for those periods outside the normal working day. General Order AA19 (paragraphs 4.2.1, 4.2.2 (ii) and 4.2.3) seems to be quite clear on the issue.

For the avoidance of doubt, the hearing scheduled for next Tuesday can, and will, go ahead in your absence should you decide you are not prepared to represent Mr. Hyde. I would strongly urge you, however, to consider your position, and that of Mr. Hyde, very carefully. I will not allow this affair to be further frustrated over this issue, not least because it is in the best interests of Mr. Hyde himself that it is resolved without further delay.

K. E. Seager
ACFO (Technical)
Brigade Investigating Officer

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 291 Merseyside Firefighter Strike Latest News

2006-09-17T02:44:00.000-07:00

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 290 Cleveland Firefighter Strike Dates August 2006

2006-08-01T00:27:00.000-07:00

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out The Suffolk Fire Society at http://www.whitepage.com.au/bertblythburgh/

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/

Z/GEN/Revised

SUFFOLK FIRE SERVICE

To: StnO Rolfe
From: Ff Wigglesworth
Station: 055
Date: 15th July 1999

Health & Safety/Union Duties on Duty

Sir,

Permission is requested to represent Firefighter M Hyde at his discipline case beginning 20th July 1999. This is to be staged at Ipswich.

Submitted

A Wigglesworth Ff 854

Granted KWR StnO

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 289 Teeside Fire Strike Latest News

2006-06-29T23:57:00.000-07:00

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 288 Hertfordshire Firefighter Strike FBU Media Briefing

2006-05-07T10:31:00.000-07:00

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 Suffolk Firefighter Kit for Sale

2006-03-30T09:17:00.000-08:00

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

2006-03-19T00:00:00.000-08:00

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

2006-03-11T03:49:00.000-08:00

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 Norfolk Firefighter Recruitment 2006

2006-02-17T10:24:00.000-08:00

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/

Suffolk County Council

Fire Service

A Wigglesworth
Lowestoft Fire Station
P.O. Box 54,
Lowestoft
Suffolk
NR32 2Q

GDS/MLA
DO G Smith

(01473) 588861

9th July 1999

Dear Mr Wigglesworth,

Thank you for your letter dated 2nd July 1999.

The date in the transcript you refer to should have read 20th January 1999 and is therefore the document already in Mr Hyde’s possession. The correct date was referred to earlier in the interview on page one.

Once again, I refer you to my earlier letter assuring you that the bundle of evidence you forwarded to me is secure in my office. If you remain unsatisfied with that assurance, please take this up with the Brigade Investigating Officer, ACFO Seager.

Yours sincerely

G D Smith
Divisional Officer

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 285 John Owers devon Fire and Rescue Service

2006-02-05T00:03:00.000-08:00

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

2006-01-29T00:46:00.000-08:00

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 283 FBU Industrial Action 2006

2006-01-22T00:08:00.000-08:00

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

2006-01-15T00:28:00.000-08:00

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

2006-01-05T23:50:00.000-08:00

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

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 280 Aldeburgh Firefighter Vacancies

2005-12-26T00:23:00.000-08:00

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "Lowestoft Firefighter” http://www.livejournal.com/users/bertblythburgh/

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,

DISCIPLINE CASE – FIREFIGHTER HYDE

I refer to your letter dated 17TH May 1999, received by the Chief fire Officer’s Personal Assistant on 21st June 1999. I believe you were aware that Mr Alcock was on annual leave at that time. He has passed your letter to me on his return for reply.

I can confirm that the appointment of Mr Jackson as an assessor at the summary hearing, due to be heard on 20th July, is to go ahead despite the concerns you raise. My belief, also supported by reliable legal advice, is that this is not prohibited under the Fire Services’ (Discipline) regulations, 1985.

For the avoidance of doubt, the decision to appoint an assessor is my decision. The Chief Fire Officer has had no direct involvement in the case to date. This is a sensible precaution, I am sure you will agree, in case the matter is remitted for him to hear following the summary hearing due on 20th July.

Yours sincerely

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

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 279 Buncefield Emergency Fire Plans

2005-12-17T03:14:00.000-08:00

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales and brigade social history then check out "SubO X”

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/

Z/GEN/Revised

SUFFOLK FIRE SERVICE

To: ADO Wilson

From: Ff Wigglesworth
Station: 055

Date: 8th July 1999

Health & Safety/Union Duties on Duty

Sir,

Permission is requested to work with Ff Hyde on the preparation of his discipline case on Monday 12th and Tuesday 13th July 1999.

Submitted

A Wigglesworth Ff 854

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 278 Buncefield Oil Fire

2005-12-11T01:11:00.000-08:00

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 277 Buncefield Explosion

2005-12-11T01:09:00.000-08:00

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 276 Stowmarket Firefighter

2005-12-03T10:41:00.000-08:00

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 275 Stowmarket Fire Station Open Day

2005-11-29T00:04:00.000-08:00

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

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/

Suffolk County Council

Fire Service

A Wigglesworth
C/o P.O. Box 54,
Lowestoft
Suffolk
NR32 2QA

PER/SD/CAB
Miss S. Davies
01473) 588888

7th July 1999

Dear Mr Wigglesworth,

I refer to your letters dated 29th and 30th June, 1999.

The summary hearing regarding Mr Hyde’s case will not be recorded, nor will you be permitted to introduce any recording equipment into the hearing. As I am sure you are aware, there is no automatic right of appeal following a summary hearing and, consequently, there is no necessity to record such an event.

With regard to your request to ad Mr. English to the list of witnesses called on behalf of Mr. Hyde, I assume this is in place of ( rather than in addition to) Mr. Wood. A letter has been sent to mr English requiring his attendance at the hearing.

Yours sincerely

Sarah Davies
Personnel Manager

The Suffolk hyde Affair - Doc 274 Aldeburgh Firemen

2005-11-20T23:45:00.000-08:00

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 273 Aldeburgh Fireman

2005-11-20T23:44:00.000-08:00

Mr David Kemp
Felixstowe

6.07.99

Ref: Discipline Case FF: Hyde

Dear Tony,

With regard to my previous letter stating when I was approached. The date should’ve read December 1998 and not 9 as previously stated.

Apologies for the hold up.

Yours faithfully

David Kemp
LFf@06

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 272 Aldeburgh Firefighter

2005-11-20T23:40:00.000-08:00

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

or find more on “The Suffolk Hyde affair” via the comprehensive blog search engine feedster.com at
http://www.feedster.com/

POINTS OF INTEREST DOC 217?

Regrettably we do not have a copy of the letter Bill Rampling sent to Assistant Chief Fire Officer Seager 18th June 1999.

‘First, on the matter of witnesses, the paragraph from the guidance to the discipline regulations you quote in your letter, relates to the duties imposed on the disciplinary body for securing the attendance of witnesses on behalf of the accused. The guidance note is quite specific that that duty extends to “..any witnesses to relevant facts” (my italics) – a point you choose not to emphasis by the use of capital letters in your letter.’

We do not think there is any dispute in the term “witnesses to relevant facts”. The dispute is one of who is the arbiter as to what the relevant facts are in the fact. In this case it seems that ACFO Seager and his confederates have decided it is them who will decide and restrict the boundaries of relevant facts. Indeed, to the extent that ACFO Seager will also decide and control the whole remit of defence strategy. In effect ACFO will decide and select the defence witnesses. It is argued that such action is non-compliant with the right to a fair trail under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (article 6.1). As too, is conflicting role of ACFO Seager as investigator, convening officer and prosecutor.

‘The emphasis you suggest is quite different, and your interpretation would appear to be that anyone named by the accused as a witness must be ordered to attend whether or not they have been witnesses to relevant facts. I disagree. To follow your argument to a logical conclusion, an accused member would be able to name every serving member of the Brigade as a witness, without any justification as to his or her relevance and each would have to be ordered to attend. This would present us with an impossible administrative burden and would have the effect of frustrating the course of natural justice rather than promoting it. Common sense must prevail, surely? Indeed, you seem to accept as mush by referring in your letter to the need to keep a sense of proportion. If so, I entirely agree with you.’
But let’s not forget the accused is not asking the whole brigade to attend. The specified witness list 12th May 1999 (Doc 166) consisted of 12 named individuals, all uniformed officers of Suffolk Fire Service. In consequence it is argued there is little merit in ACFO Seagers plea above.

‘In recent cases where an attempt has been made to introduce witnesses for the defence that do not appear to be witnesses to relevant facts, the accused has been given the opportunity to justify the need for the Brigade to order those witnesses to attend.’

In reality such quality control judgements are the behest of the presiding officer during the course of the hearing.

Where a satisfactory justification has been given, the witness has been ordered to attend. In each case, the accused’s right to independently seek the co-operation of the witness has not been compromised.

In essence such a demand results in the defence being forced to reveal strategy and intended conduct to the prosecutor ACFO Seager. Another flagrant breach of article 6.1 ECHR.

I have to say that my experiences in this regard have shown that most of those so named have been equally puzzled as to their relevance and have declined to attend.

I do not believe that decisions made in recent cases not to order the attendance of named witnesses have materially disadvantaged the defence of the charge, or charges, faced. I also firmly believe that the requirements of natural justice have been fully met.

ACFO Seager seems to be saying that his decisions in this case are driven by actions and events connected with previous cases!

On your second point, I agree that it is unusual to appoint an assessor at a summary hearing.

A more precise term would be unique or precedent.

I have to say that my decision to do so is based upon my dealings to date with the accused friend in this specific case, who has barraged me and others with correspondence since the outset, much of which is confusing and written in a way that is difficult to understand. He has raised numerous queries with me about the process of the investigation and the issue of the charge sheet, my involvement, the integrity of officers and other matters.

Well this is the first time ACFO has revealed his reasoning. It’s all the fault of the accused friend. Well I suppose that makes it alright for ACFO Seager to commit the offence of “Abuse of Authority” by acting outside the legitimate powers of the Fire Service (discipline) Regulations 1985 does it?

Well we must also bear in mind that the case was originally scheduled to be heard at Lowestoft Fire Station 7th June 1999. Same presiding Officer DO Peter Ludford. No attendance of the assessor Suffolk Council Solicitor Mr Chris Jackson. May we conclude that some event/s occurred on or around 7th June 1999 (give or take a few days) to motivate ACFO K Seager to appoint an assessor? The actual record of the appointment of an assessor is 14th June 1999 (Doc 222). Perhaps it was the receipt, by DO Smith, of the defence bundle of documents on 2nd June 1999? Funny how the hearing scheduled for 7th June 1999 was so hurriedly cancelled in the wake of the defence’s bundle of documents arriving at Colchester Road wasn’t it?

Finally, on this point. Miss Davies also adds the legal advice plea for the assessor appointment in Doc 258.

I believe that these are matters over which the Presiding Officer must exercise judgement within the hearing and I am concerned that the Presiding Officer may want some legal advice during the hearing. I believe the only proper way of providing such advice is to do so openly within the hearing in the presence of the accused himself, hence my decision to invite the Assistant County Solicitor to be an assessor. I do not forsee the need to follow this course of action as the norm unless in future cases, unless I am faced with similar circumstances.

The Presiding Officer a senior and trained Fire Service Officer merely needs to make his decisions based on his own knowledge. And most importantly in good faith

‘Finally, you question the involvement of Miss Davies in the discipline process. It remains the case that after the charge sheet has been issued, arrangements for the hearing are placed in the hands of the Personnel manager. My role as Investigating officer is, by definition, over once the investigation is complete and the charge sheet has been issued.’

At another time and in another blog (Sub Officer X) I think it will be found that ACFO Seager contradicts himself on this statement. Is he lying or just spinning? Is their a difference?

Furthermore, since I have been named as a witness by the accused in the case you cite I felt it was improper to involve myself in the decision as to the legitimacy or otherwise of the other witnesses named by the accused.

Is this ACFO Seager saying it was Miss Davies who made the RULING over who was deemed as relevant witnesses? i.e. a civilian who is not herself subject to code of conduct she is administering. Nor trained in the application of the discipline regulations.

At another recent case heard by the fire Authority, you will recall that the County Director of Personnel undertook this function. It seems reasonable, therefore, for Miss Davies to do so in this internal hearing.

In closing, I would wish to point out that it is only in the very recent past that I have felt it necessary to depart from the established and hitherto accepted practices for disciplinary hearings.

In consequence an open admission by ACFO Seager of a wilful and conscious understanding that he is acting outside normal and established protocol.

Previously in my dealings with Fire brigades’ Union accused friends, I have found them (yourself included) to be reasonable people with whom I have been able to develop a mutual understanding and respect for our different positions.

So, again ACFO Seager seems to be blaming the accused friend for his own misdemeanours. He has no respect for the accused friend?

So far as my role under the Regulations goes, I have no interest at all in any matters beyond upholding what I believe to be the necessary discipline for the Service to function as a respected public emergency service, and ensuring fairness and natural justice. I therefore utterly refute any suggestion that the process has the appearance of a witch –hunt.

I apologise for the length of my reply, but I hope I have adequately addressed your concerns. As ever, I remain willing to meet you or any representative of the Fire Brigades’ Union to discuss disciplinary matters. Please contact, Sigi, my secretary to make an appointment for a meeting if you think it would help.

All in all the rhetoric and general discourse provides a valuable insight into the personality traits of a senior fire officer who encounters resistance to his absolute will.

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 271 Aldeburgh Fire Station Open Day

2005-11-12T23:48:00.000-08:00

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 270 Leiston Retained Fireman

2005-10-28T00:24:00.000-07:00

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 269 Leiston RFU

2005-10-28T00:23:00.000-07:00

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 268 Leiston FBU

2005-10-28T00:22:00.000-07:00

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 267 Leiston Female Firefighter

2005-10-28T00:17:00.000-07:00

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 266 Beccles Fireman

2005-10-28T00:16:00.000-07:00

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 265 Beccles Firefighter

2005-10-28T00:14:00.000-07:00

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 264 Beccles Fire Station Open Day

2005-10-28T00:13:00.000-07:00

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 263 Rhyl Firefighter Vacancies

2005-10-28T00:11:00.000-07:00

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

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/

Suffolk County Council

Fire Service

A Wigglesworth Esq
Fire brigades Union
Lowestoft Fire Station
P.O. Box 54, Lowestoft
Suffolk NR32 2QA
SAS/SIS
SASmith
(01473) 588939
28th June 1999

Dear Mr Wigglesworth,

DISCIPLINE CASE – FIREFIGHTER M HYDE

Thank you for your letter of 1st June 1999 requesting my attendance as a witness in the above discipline case. As I am not a witness to material facts, I am not willing to appear as a witness for the defence.

Yours sincerely

S A Smith
Deputy Chief fire Officer

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 262 Leiston Volunteer Firefighter

2005-10-23T00:13:00.000-07:00

Mr David Kemp
Felixstowe

27.06.99

Ref: Discipline Case FF: Hyde

Dear Tony,

With regard to your letter dated 23.06.99.

I can confirm I was offered a temporary secondment to Normanshurst Station in early December 1999. However, I don’t know by whom, as a message was left on my answer phone from my station and not a senior officer.

I believe the reason behind asking me to go to Normanshurst at the time was due to the fact that I had a transfer request in to go there as a leading fire-fighter or Acting Sub Officer to gain watch experience as a senior officer on a station of my choice.

I hope this letter finds you well

Yours faithfully

David Kemp
LFf@06

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 261 Leiston Volunteer Fireman

2005-10-19T08:36:00.000-07:00

The Fire Brigades Union

No. 10 Region
Chris Hayward
55 Burrell Rd
Ipswich
Suffolk
IP2 8AH

24th June 1999

CFO Alcock
Suffolk Fire Service
IP2 8AH

Dear Mr Alcock,

Appointment of assessors for summary hearings

I am writing to you to express my concern regarding the brigades decision to appoint an assessor for a summary hearing within the Fire Service discipline regulations 1985.
To my knowledge this is a first for Suffolk. I have spoken to Bill Rampling and Graham Tranquada who deal with discipline matters on behalf of the union at brigade and regional level respectively and both are unaware of this circumstance happening before. My investigations would therefore indicate to me that this would indeed be setting a precedent.
I have contacted Thompsons the FBU solicitors for advice on this matter. Their opinion is that the brigade are not entitled to appoint an assessor for a summary hearing. That regulation 9 (4) specifically provides the chief with power to appoint up to two assessors for a hearing where the hearing falls to be heard by him or the elected members. A summary hearing, regulation 9 (3) procedure does not fall within either of the above circumstances and as such no assessor should be present.

The guidance states "the general tone of the hearing (summary) should be more of an interview than a procedural hearing". This then begs the question what role an assessor would play in an "interview" style hearing.

1. Why are the brigade seemingly going against the discipline procedures and guidance?
2. Who made the decision to appoint an assessor?
3. Why does the brigade believe there is a necessity to have an assessor present.
4. Is this precedent, due to the fact that the defendant is an active trade union official?
5. Why is there no mention of assessors in the guidance (annex c) regarding summary hearings if this facility is available to the brigade?
6. Why does the role and function of an assessor only appear under annex d (the full hearing ) in the guidance notes?
7. Can the brigade provide an example where this has happened before?

The FBU firmly believes that by appointing an assessor, the brigade is not adhering to the 1985 discipline regulations and I would ask that this decision is reversed.

The case in question has been set for the 20th July. I would therefore be grateful if I could receive a reply as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely,

Chris Hayward

Brigade Secretary, Suffolk FBU.

The Suffolk hyde Affair - Doc 260 Suffolk FBU

2005-10-19T08:35:00.000-07:00

Spare

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 259 Wickhambrook RFU

2005-10-19T08:33:00.000-07:00

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 258 Wickhambrook Volunteer Firefighter

2005-10-18T00:04:00.000-07:00

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 257 Wickhambrook Fire Station Training Night

2005-10-17T23:54:00.000-07:00

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 256 Lowestoft Fire Alarm Free Firefighter Check

2005-10-17T23:53:00.000-07:00

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 255 Advice for School Visits to Felixstowe Fire Station

2005-10-14T23:50:00.000-07:00

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 254 Leiston Fire Station Drill Night

2005-10-14T23:48:00.000-07:00

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 253 Felixstowe Crucial Crew 2006

2005-10-14T23:45:00.000-07:00

The Suffolk Hyde Affair -Doc 252 Felixstowe Fire Cadets

2005-10-14T23:44:00.000-07:00

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 251 Felixstowe Woman Firefighter

2005-10-14T23:43:00.000-07:00

The Fire Brigades Union

No. 10 Region

Reply to:

Lowestoft Fire station
PO Box 54
Lowestoft
NR32 2QA

23rd June 1999

Dear DO Smith,

Ff M Hyde – Conduct Prejudicial to Discipline – Discovery of Documents

As you will no doubt remember you conducted a formal interview with the above 23rd March 1999. Within that interview you personally posed Firefighter Hyde a question relating to T/ADO Saward’s written order dated 21st January 1999.

As the representative of Firefighter Hyde and as necessary for his defence, we request to be furnished with a complete and unedited copy of the above written order to which you referred during the relevant interview 23rd March 1999.

I would be pleased if you could comply with the request in a reasonable period.

Yours faithfully

A Wigglesworth BSc, MBA, G.I.Fire.E.

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 250 Black Suffolk Firefighter

2005-10-14T23:42:00.000-07:00

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 249 Haverhill Fire Station Open Day

2005-10-14T23:39:00.000-07:00

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 248 Felixstowe Volunteer Fireman

2005-10-14T23:37:00.000-07:00

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 247 Felixstowe FSYTA

2005-10-14T23:34:00.000-07:00

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 246 Felixstowe Fire Station Open Day

2005-10-14T23:32:00.000-07:00

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 245 Felixstowe Firefighter Vacancies

2005-10-08T23:55:00.000-07:00

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 244 Wickhambrook Woman Firefighter

2005-10-08T23:53:00.000-07:00

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 243 Mildenhall Fire Safety

2005-10-08T23:52:00.000-07:00

Spare

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 242 Leiston Fire Station Drill Night

2005-10-08T23:50:00.000-07:00

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 241 Sudbury Firefighter Vacancies

2005-10-08T23:49:00.000-07:00

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 240 Leiston Volunteer Firefighter

2005-10-08T23:47:00.000-07:00

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 239 The Unlawful Sarah Meelan

2005-10-08T23:46:00.000-07:00

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 238 Mildenhall Woman Firefighter

2005-10-08T23:44:00.000-07:00

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 237 Wickhambrook Fire Station Open Day

2005-10-08T23:43:00.000-07:00

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 236 Wickhambrook Fireman

2005-10-08T23:42:00.000-07:00

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 235 Wickhambrook Firefighter Vacancies

2005-10-08T23:39:00.000-07:00

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 234 Mildenhall Fire Station Open Day

2005-10-08T23:38:00.000-07:00

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 233 Mildenhall Fireman

2005-10-08T23:36:00.000-07:00

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 232 Mildenhall Firefighter Vacancies

2005-10-08T23:34:00.000-07:00

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 231 Leiston Woman Firefighter

2005-10-08T23:33:00.000-07:00

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 230 Leiston Fire Safety

2005-10-08T23:31:00.000-07:00

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 229 Suffolk County Council Legal Services

2005-10-08T23:30:00.000-07:00

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 228 Suffolk County Council Monitoring Officer

2005-10-08T23:28:00.000-07:00

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 227 Keith Hanscomb Fire Brigades Union

2005-10-08T23:26:00.000-07:00

The Fire Brigades Union

No. 10 Region

Chris Hayward
55 Burrell Rd
Ipswich
Suffolk
IP2 8AH

15th June 1999

Mrs Lin Homer
Chief Executive
Suffolk County Council

Dear Mrs Homer,

Fire Service (Discipline) Regulations 1985

Thank you for your letter of 1st June 1999 which I was disappointed to receive.

I agree that as the allegations relate to a principal officer and other officers, it is for the Fire Authority to nominate the investigating officer to investigate the matter if it appears that a member of a fire brigade may have committed an offence.

The letters are in my possession as a representative of the Fire Brigades Union. Mr Wigglesworth was present when the Deputy Chief Fire Officer gave evidence. Mr Wigglesworth is also the accused’s friend in Mr Hyde’s case. Where evidence is given by a principal officer which is directly contradicted by the same officer in later correspondence, it is perfectly proper for the matter to be raised through the employee’s trade union representative if the individual so wishes. To refuse to entertain such complaints is in my view a tactic designed to discriminate against members of the Fire Brigades Union and to discourage them from participating in the activities of the union.

I am unsure as to the relevance of the fact that the letter was drafted on the Deputy Chief Officer’s behalf by the County Secretary and Solicitor (re Doc 149*). The letter purports to be from and is signed by the Deputy Chief Fire Officer. It must then be taken to be his view. Surely he had some input into the letter writing? Surely he read it before he signed it? If not, then the letter should not have been held out as being written by him as to do so in such circumstances would be grossly misleading.

Whether Deputy Chief Fire Officer Smith was giving evidence of facts or his opinions is neither here nor there. It is the case that at the disciplinary hearing, Deputy Chief Fire Officer Smith stated that a grievance has the effect of preserving the status quo. Subsequently, Deputy Chief Fire Officer Smith states entirely the opposite. That being so he clearly gave evidence which he did not believe to be true. The operation of the status quo provision in the grievance procedure is not qualified by the operation of other procedures. The Deputy Chief fire Officer’s letter makes it clear that he is of the view that the status quo is not preserved pending a grievance because to do so would mean that the Brigade must be run by consent. On that analysis, which is now mirrored by yours, because Mr Wigglesworth had been told that his wages would suffer a deduction, had he chosen to lodge a grievance rather than file a near miss, the grievance would not have meant that he could avoid the deduction as he had previously been informed that the deduction would be made.

The task of the fire authority is not to establish whether or not there appears to be a prima facie case. That is the task of the Investigating Officer at the completion of the investigation. With respect, the task of the fire Authority is to determine simply whether an offence may have been committed. The test was clearly satisfied in this case. The Deputy Chief Fire Officer has given two different descriptions of how the grievance procedure works. There may or may not be reasons for that discrepancy, but the fact remains that an offence against discipline may have been committed, and it now falls to be investigated in accordance with the regulations. You have quite obviously gone some way to carrying out a partial investigation yourself but such action is clearly inappropriate. Investigation should be carried out in accordance with the principles explained in Annex B of the guidance and you should have invited a principal officer of comparable rank from another Brigade to investigate the allegation. The reason for this is made patently clear in your letter. You seek to explain the fact that the grievance did not preserve the status quo on the ground that a disciplinary charge held the grievance in abeyance and therefore, presumably, also held the status quo provision in abeyance. Firstly, to charge an employee is an inventive and vindictive way of avoiding the status quo provision, but secondly, it is obviously not true. On 29th May 1998, Mr Wigglesworth was told about the intention to deduct pay from his wages at the end of June. He lodged a grievance on 4th June 1998. An allegation raising the possibility of an offence against discipline was raised by Divisional Officer Hodge on 5th June 1998. Mr Wigglesworth’s pay was adjusted at the end of June. He was not charged until the end of July. Please explain then, how the grievance came to be in abeyance at a time when the charge had not even been brought and it was still not established that Mr Wigglesworth had done anything wrong. Your purported explanation demonstrates that a proper investigation has not been carried out and that every effort is being made to avoid the allegations being fully and properly looked into.

It is noticed that the Brigade will charge and discipline a member of the fire service’s lower ranks without hesitation. Recently, that seems to have been particularly the case with officials of the Fire Brigades Union, or with members who have disagreed with senior management. The refusal of the Fire Authority to treat principal officers in the same way that less senior members of the brigade, and particularly those active in the F.B.U. are treated, is not only disappointing but creates a feeling of distrust amongst the lower ranks and, if reflective of a desire to treat active F.B.U. members differently is unlawful. It is worth noting that the allegations against ADO Saward and DO Hodge have been dealt with following an investigation by a nominated Officer, as required by Regulations.

In the circumstances, I urge you to comply with your obligations under the Fire Services (Discipline) Regulations 1985 and to refer the complaint against Deputy Chief Fire Officer Smith for an investigation by a principal officer of comparable or senior rank, to the DCFO, from another Brigade.

In the event that you are unwilling to do so, can you please tell me why.

Finally, the wording of the “status quo” provision is in my, and other Brigade Officials view, beyond dispute. Are you now suggesting that in any case, the “status quo” provision can be rendered ineffective by the Brigade starting disciplinary proceedings against the individual concerned?

Yours sincerely,

Brigade Secretary, Suffolk FBU.

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 226 Clerk to Suffolk Police Constabulary

2005-10-08T23:24:00.000-07:00

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

Re the legality of Assessor (Mr Chris Jackson Suffolk County Solicitor) Appointment?

What does the Fire Service (Discipline) Regulations 1986 state?

Page 5

Part III

HEARINGS AND INTERNAL APPEALS

Hearing
9.- (1) save as provided in paragraphs (2) and (30, where a member of a fire brigade has been charged with an offence under regulation 8(3), the case shall be heard, as the chief officer may determine, by-

(a) the chief officer, or
(b) (b) the disciplinary tribunal of the fire authority, that is to say, a committee of the fire authority designated as such by the authority or a sub-committee of such a committee.

(2) A case shall be heard by the disciplinary tribunal of the fire authority if either-

(a) the member is a principal office.
(b) the member is of a class or description which the fire authority has directed should be so heard.

(3) Where, in the case of a member who is not a principal officer, the investigating officer is of the view that the nature of the alleged offence is such that it is unlikely to merit greater punishment than a reprimand he shall so inform the chief officer, who shall nominate another officer to conduct the hearing.

(4) The chief officer, (where the case falls to be heard by him) or the fire authority (where a case falls to be heard by its disciplinary tribunal) may appoint not more than 2 persons to act as assessors at the hearing.

It is put to readers that Miss Davies notification and documented intent to appoint an assessor to a summary hearing at which the chief officer is absent is/ was unlawful?

Perhaps a more important question would be to ask what is the motivating force that directs an experienced and highly qualified local authority personnel officer to wilfully act outside of statutory law?

It is proposed that the motivating force is Fire Service Command Power Syndrome Theory (FSCPST).

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 225 Advice for School Visits to Leiston Fire Station

2005-10-05T23:58:00.000-07:00

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

Lowestoft Fire station
PO Box 54
Lowestoft
NR32 2QA

15th June 1999

Dear Miss Davies,

Thank you for your letters 10th and 14th June 1999.

The former was in reply to my letter 3rd June 1999. With respect you have not addresses all the issues attached. These are the same issues that have been brought to your attention on previous occasions. As such I will assume you are unable or unwilling to respond in a constructive manner to the content of my letter 3rd June 1999.

Notwithstanding, I note your comment in relation to ACFO Seager. It is clear you nominate him as the person ultimately responsible for all matters concerned.

As to the grievance nullification you interpret in respect of discipline matters. Firstly I would refer you to the mischief of the grievance procedure page 5 par 1.1. This implies an objective test. Secondly you are not embraced by the relevant regulations. There could be no reasonable justification to bar any complaint against your, or any others, administrative performance connected to a disciplinary matter. This may be the case in relation to the actual act, or incident which gives rise to the discipline matter. However, non-competent or malicious decisions by individuals, though they are connected to a discipline case would not be barred. This analysis is based on the concept of reasonableness. Quite clearly you are not a subject of the Fire Service Discipline Regulations.

Moving on to your letter 14th June 1999 and the intention to engage Mr C Jackson (Assistant County Solicitor) as an assessor. This is of considerable interest for which definitive statutory interpretation is to be found under 9 (4) of the relevant regulations.

The Chief officer (where a case falls to be heard by him) or the fire authority (where the case falls to be heard by its disciplinary tribunal) may appoint not more than 2 persons to act as assessors at the hearing.

Regulation 9 (4) is totally and unequivocally for application at full hearing. There is no statutory provision for assessors in respect of a summary hearing. Indeed, even if we apply the literal description of any would be assessor, outlined annex D 3, Mr Jackson would be incompatible.

The appointment of Mr Jackson is a serious departure from the procedures inherent to the relevant Regulations. For this reason I would be extremely pleased if you could explain your reasoning behind the appointment of Mr Jackson as an assessor. In particular, it is a fact Mr Jackson was not engaged for the earlier hearing arranged for 7th June 1999. Quite reasonably I ask you to provide me with material details as to why you now find it necessary for the attendance of Mr Jackson.

I would also be grateful if you might refer me to the relevant empowering statutory provision. Finally on this point could you please inform me who is responsible for the decision to appoint Mr Jackson.

I am sure you will appreciate the issue surrounding Mr Jackson’s appointment is worthy of detailed explanation. It is more than reasonable to expect you will be able to address these issues fully. If you are unable to respond to these specific points I will assume you are inclined to accept my own reading of the situation.

With regard to the unavailability of witnesses, those specified are required.

Finally, I would also be pleased if you could confirm you have copied in Mr C Jones at Thompsons Solicitors in all your communications regarding this case. This was agreed in writing by ACFO Seager 10th May 1999. I get the distinct impression this has not been the case of late.

I look forward to your response.

Yours faithfully

A Wigglesworth BSc, MBA, G.I.Fire.E.

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 224 Leiston Firefighter Vacancies

2005-10-05T23:56:00.000-07:00

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

Suffolk County Council

Fire Service

A Wigglesworth
Lowestoft

PER/SD/SS
Miss S. Davies
(01473) 588888
14th June 1999

Dear Mr Hyde,

Fire Services (Discipline) Regulations, 1985 Notification of Hearing

Further to the Charge Sheet issued to you on 21st April 1999, the brigade Investigating Officer has informed me that he is satisfied there is a case to answer and that it should be subject to a summary Hearing, to be heard by Divisional officer Ludford. Mr C Jackson (Assistant County Solicitor) will attend the Hearing as an Assessor.

Accordingly arrangements have been made for the hearing to take place on Tuesday 20th July, commencing at 1000 hours. The Hearing will be held at Brigade Headquarters. In accordance with the Fire service (Discipline) Regulations 1985, you are, therefore, ordered to attend the above hearing. You should report to Reception on arrival at Headquarters.

The dress code for the Hearing will be undress uniform (No. 1 Rig).

One of the witnesses you intend to call, Firefighter S. Wood, may be unable to attend the Hearing. If this is the case your representative may like to contact the Presenting Officer, D.O. Graham smith, with a view to a statement from Mr. Wood being presented at the hearing, without the need for Mr. Wood to attend in person.

Please sign and return the second copy of this letter as confirmation of receipt and your understanding of its contents. A copy has been sent to your representative.

Yours sincerely

Sarah Davies
Personnel Manager

………………………………………………………………………………………….

I have read this letter and understood its contents

Signed ……………………………………..Date……………………………………

c.c. Mr. G. Smith
Mr. A. Wigglesworth

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 223 Suffolk College Vacancies

2005-10-05T23:54:00.000-07:00

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

ANALYSIS DOC 222

For want of better words there seems to have been a sea change in the behaviour of Miss Davies (now, 2005, Mrs Meelan Human Resources Director Suffolk College, Ipswich).

In particular, she seems to have adopted a more personal approach to dealing with the process of the disciplinary prosecution of Firefighter Hyde. For instance, track back to Doc 188 (24th May 1999) and Miss Davies seemed to suggest that the routine organisation and administration of the prosecution process was handed over to her assistant Mrs Jo Campbell. Also Miss Davies has undertaken to write to Firefighter Hyde’s “accused’s friend” at his domestic address. That is in conflict with Doc 188 and with the “accused’s friend” sender address on all correspondence. This seems consistent with a ratcheting up of the personalisation context being undertaken by Miss Davies.

It is also suggested that this trend is a natural symptom of the dynamic of Fire Service Command Power Syndrome Theory (FSCPST). Miss Davies documented action and intent grounds the following emergent proposition.

FSCPST practitioners have a tendency to adopt personalised strategies against those who resist the individual or collective command will. Accordingly such practitioners will, for the purpose of physical or psychological advantage, transgress into the private and personal environment of those with whom they are in conflict.

There are two other new developments contained in Doc 222 that should not escape notice.

Firstly, Miss Davies announces that an assessor will attend the prosecution hearing. That being, Miss Davies colleague the Suffolk County solicitor Mr Chris Jackson. Rest assured there is no legal right for the appointment of an assessor in these or any other circumstances at a UK Fire Service disciplinary hearing under the 1986 regulations.

In consequence, it would also seem that FSCPST practitioners will adopt unlawful practices to impose their absolute command will. Of course this is no more than restatement. This proposition has already been grounded by much earlier events in this real life case study.

Finally, the critical importance of retaining control to FSCPST practitioners is also evidenced by the notification that Firefighter Hyde’s prosecution hearing will be at Brigade Headquarters in Ipswich. So, completely contrary to the earlier casual and hasty determination made by Mrs Jo Campbell in Doc 193. Maybe Mrs Campbell wasn’t in tune or a member of the Command Power collective?

Whatever the FSCPST quarry will be kept within the practitioners home domain and isolated. Indeed to ultimate forum to ensure that all the cast of characters directing the FSCPST dynamic sign from the same hymn sheet.

The Suffolk hyde Affair - Doc 222 Suffolk College Advice for Job Applicants

2005-10-05T23:53:00.000-07:00

The Suffolk hyde Affair - Doc 221 Bramford Road Sproughton

2005-10-05T23:51:00.000-07:00

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

Suffolk County Council

Fire Service

A Wigglesworth Esq
Lowestoft Fire Station
Lowestoft
NR32 2QA
KES/DISC/Hyde
ACFO Seager
(01473) 588939
11th June 1999

Dear Mr Wigglesworth,

FIRE SERVICES (DISCIPLINE) REGULATIONS, 1985

I refer to your letter dated 4th June 1999.

All matters concerning the charge against Mr Hyde must be properly put before the Presiding officer at the disciplinary hearing.

Yours sincerely

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

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 220 Leiston Fire Station Open Day

2005-10-05T23:48:00.000-07:00

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

Suffolk County Council

Fire Service
A Wigglesworth Esq
c/o Lowestoft Fire Station
Lowestoft
NR32 2QA
PER/SD/KMD
Miss S. Davies
(01473) 588872
10th June 1999

Dear Mr Wigglesworth,

I have received your letter dated 3rd June, 1999.

The position conveyed to you in my letter dated 24th May, 1999, remains unchanged.

I am surprised by your apparent anxiety about my role in disciplinary matters. As the Brigades Personnel Manager, it is my duty to be involved. In Mr Hyde’s case, I act on behalf of the Brigade Investigating officer. I hope this puts your mind at rest.

Like you, I would not wish to find it necessary to raise a grievance regarding this matter. Unlike you, I see no reason why you should do so. Indeed, the Grievance procedures specifically exclude disciplinary matters.

I shall be notifying you shortly of a date for Mr. Hyde’s summary hearing. No doubt he is anxious to put this matter behind him.

Yours sincerely

Sarah Davies
Personnel Manager

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 219 Normanshurst fire Station Open Day

2005-10-05T23:47:00.000-07:00

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 218 Haverhill Crucial Crew 2006

2005-10-04T00:40:00.000-07:00

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

Suffolk County Council

Fire Service

A Wigglesworth Esq
Lowestoft Fire Station
Lowestoft
NR32 2QA

KES/DISC/Hyde
ACFO Seager
(01473) 588939
7th June 1999

Dear Mr Wigglesworth,

Discipline Case – Firefighter Hyde

Thank you for your further letter dated 1st June 1999.

I do not believe I can be of any assistance at all to Mr Hyde in his defence of the charge brought against him. I do not believe that I have been witness to any relevant facts.

In so far as my decisions in the case, and the processes which have been followed, are concerned (all of which have been well documented) the appropriateness or otherwise of these will, I am sure, be duly considered by the Presiding officer as part of his judgement on the evidence presented before him.

I cannot imagine what you mean by your reference to Mr Stebbings’ * own case in 1995, and frankly find the tone of that paragraph of your letter quite patronising. It is nevertheless true that I have always done my best to ensure professionalism, fairness and justice and to uphold the discipline of our service.

I am afraid I am inclined to refuse your invitation to attend the hearing on Mr Hyde’s behalf.

Yours sincerely

K. E. Seager,
Assistant Chief Fire Officer (Technical)
Brigade Investigating Officer
* See Doc 199

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 217 Haverhill Fire Station Open Day

2005-10-04T00:38:00.000-07:00

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

Follow up on Doc 216

The claim for "time off in lieu" referred to in Doc 216 was made on the basis of long-tern Custom and Practice. In particular, it was known that Firefighter Bill Rampling stationed at Bury St Edmunds, who had acted as accused friend on numerous other discipline prosecutions had no problem in obtaining such "time off in lieu" arrangements.

Evidently T/ADO Graham Saward had a different outlook on such matters compared to his Bury St Edmunds counterpart.

Or maybe his decision was borne of other influence/s?

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 216 Suffolk Volunteer Firefighter

2005-10-04T00:35:00.000-07:00

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

SUFFOLK FIRE SERVICE

TO: Firefighter Hyde
Blue Watch

FROM: ADO Saward

DATE: 7 June 1999

Application for Time in Lieu

I refer to your memorandum dated 26 May, in which you request time in lieu for time spent assisting Sub Officer Wigglesworth in connection with his discipline case.

I would refer you to General Order AA19 which deals with time off for trade union officials. This order is relevant since you seem to be claiming time off in your capacity as a FBU accused friend for Sub Officer Wigglesworth.

Paragraph 4.2.3. is clear that time off in lieu will not normally be given for duties undertaken when the individual would otherwise have been off duty.

The provisions of paragraph 4.2.4. do not apply either, because in none of the instances you cite were you called on by the Brigade to attend these meetings.

Your application for time in lieu is therefore refused.

G.E. Saward
Assistant Divisional Officer

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 215 Ipswich Crucial Crew 2006

2005-09-30T00:13:00.000-07:00

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

Suffolk County Council

Fire Service

A Wigglesworth Esq
Lowestoft Fire Station
Lowestoft
NR32 2QA

GDS/SIS/DISC
DO G Smith
(01473) 588861

7th June 1999

Dear Mr Wigglesworth,
Discipline Case – Firefighter M Hyde

In confirmation of our telephone conversation today, 7th June 1999 at approximately 0915 hours, I have informed the Brigade Investigating Officer, ACFO Seager, that you have expressed concern to me about the appropriateness of myself representing Divisional Officer Colin Hodge in any disciplinary investigation.

Whilst writing I would also take this opportunity to point out that the bundle of evidence you forwarded to me and received on Friday 4th June 1999, being pages numbered 1-139, have two pages missing. These are 123 and 124.

I believe the question you raise in your letter dated 2nd June 1999 regarding the recording of the hearing has previously been answered by ACFO Seager.

Yours sincerely

G D Smith
Divisional Officer

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 214 Lowestoft Fire Station Open Day

2005-09-30T00:09:00.000-07:00

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

7th June 1999

On attending work 09.00 hours at Lowestoft Sub Officer found a hand written message at his desk informing him to contact DO Graham Smith at BHQ.

The purpose seemed to be that DO Smith wished to clarify and confirmation the postponement of Firefighter Hyde’s prosecution hearing on 7th June 1999.

DO Smith went on to mention he had received the defence case file and was concerned at its depth and time implications on the eventual hearing. DO Smith suggested that case file was grossly disproportionate to charge against Firefighter Hyde and should be rationalised. He stated ‘this case should only take a couple of hours.’

In reply Sub Officer Wigglesworth said ‘We have repeatedly asked for particulars and you have refused. It’s your fault that the case file is so thick.’

DO Smith replied that he had no responsibility for such matters and the administration of the case was down to ACFO Seager.

Discussion then went on to what DO Smith had done with the case file.

He said it was in his desk in front of him.

Sub Officer W then retorted with the question, ‘do you share your office with DO Ludford?’

DO Smith said ‘yes’ and asked ‘what was the relevance of the question?’

Sub Officer W then said ‘he’s the presiding officer of the case that’s what the problem is.’

DO Smith said he didn’t see any problem and expressed that such a comment was a slur on his and Do Ludfords integrity.

Sub Officer Wigglesworth then asked DO Smith if he shown the case file to anybody?

‘ Only those with a right to know the contents’ was the answer.

Who?

DO Smith refused to say.

Discussion then went on to recent developments leading on from Suffolk FBU secretary Chris Hayward’s disciplinary complaint 24th May 1999 (192). It was common knowledge that ACFO Seager was making a half-hearted investigation on the reported matters. In particular, DO Smith was officially representing DO Hodge in resisting the complaint. Therefore, he was apparently acting as prosecutor and defence in issues that overlapped into the Firefighter Hyde case.

Sub Officer Wigglesworth stated ‘your position is blatantly one of a conflict of interest and an abuse of privilege.’

DO Smith was having none of this and became extremely irritated. In heated words he returned to the issue that he felt his reputation and integrity was being slurred by Sub Officer Wigglesworth.

With that the conversation ended abruptly.

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 213 Suffolk Crucial Crew 2006

2005-09-29T23:59:00.000-07:00

Thank you for your letter dated 24th May 1999.

My willingness to assist you remains undiminished. Notwithstanding, you have refused to answer my reasonable questions posed to you 17th May 1999, to which you must have some answer. Once more I would be pleased if you could respond or, if not, please indicate that you are unable to.

I should inform you that Ff Hyde has already made a statement in relation to the questions offered to him on 23rd March 1999. As you may recall you withdrew from meaningful correspondence on or around 21st April 1999. In compliance with your instructions all further submissions were directed to the presiding officer. As a result I accept you would have been unaware of Ff Hyde’s response dated 24th April 1999. I note you seem to dwell on this issue to the detriment of the content of my letter 17th May 1999.

Once more I ask you for the name of the person who has made the complaint against Ff Hyde. We have now been asking for these basic details to no avail for three months. This is required for consideration in the discipline case and other courses of action, both internal and external.

I would be pleased if you could demonstrate good faith in the best traditions of mercantile law from which the concept is derived (honesty, fairness and reasonableness).

Finally please indicate the relevance of the documents I questioned in my letter 17th May 1999. At the same time we would be most grateful if you could confirm that all documents served 13th April, of which some are undated and unsigned, are to used as evidence. I assume you are aware these documents are date of date and authorship.

Yours faithfully

A Wigglesworth BSc, MBA, G.I.Fire.E.

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 212 Leiston Fireman

2005-09-21T23:44:00.000-07:00

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

Follow up from Doc 111

In particular DO Smith’s statement

‘Sub Officer Boyce indicated that you were not on duty and was also able to inform me that you were indeed aware that the hearing has been postponed at Mr Hyde’s request.’

Blog readers should know that at no time did Firefighter Hyde or his representatives ask for the hearing scheduled for Monday 7th June 1999, to be postponed.

Firefighter was at no time ever consulted or involved in the decision to postpone the hearing. Full and total responsibility for that decision rested with ACFO Kenneth Seager.

Inferences suggesting the motives for the postponement can be viewed in the preceding blog entries. Further reinforcement of prosecution motives can be viewed in later posts.

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 211 Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service Carol Concert 2005

2005-09-21T23:41:00.000-07:00

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

Suffolk County Council

Fire Service

A Wigglesworth Esq
Lowestoft Fire Station
Lowestoft
NR32 2QA

GDS/SIS/DISC
DO G Smith
(01473) 588861

4th June 1999

Dear Mr Wigglesworth,

Discipline Case – Firefighter M Hyde

I am in receipt of your letter dated 2nd June 1999 enclosing documents for the hearing scheduled for 7th June 1999.

On receipt of the letter this afternoon, Friday 4th June 1999, I contacted your telephone extension at Lowestoft and spoke to Sub Officer Boyce. Sub Officer Boyce indicated that you were not on duty and was also able to inform me that you were indeed aware that the hearing has been postponed at Mr Hyde’s request.

For your information I have therefore secured your documents within my office. Should you wish to have them returned please advise me.

Yours sincerely

G D Smith
Divisional Officer

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 210 Leiston Volvo Fire Engine

2005-09-17T02:43:00.000-07:00

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

Lowestoft
Suffolk

3rd June 1999

Lowestoft Fire Station,
P.O. Box 54,
Lowestoft,
Suffolk
NR32 2YA

For the attention of sub Officer A. Wigglesworth.

Dear Sub Officer Wigglesworth,

Request for Information

With reference to your letter dated 23rd May, 1999 asking me for confirmation of work carried out by me on 29th January 1999.

I stress it is with the greatest reluctance that I divulge any matters concerning my work and the trust of confidentiality placed upon me. However I understand I am morally obliged to assist you in this matter.

On January 29th 1999 a telephone call was received from A.D.O. saward requesting me to type a letter to Ff. M. Hyde which he dictated to me, the contents of which I am unable to remember. As far as I can recollect from four months ago, only one letter was processed.

A second telephone call was received from A.D.O Saward requesting an amendment to the original letter, differing only in the change of date, this letter was printed, placed in a sealed envelope and before going home placed in A.D.O. Saward’s typing tray as he was still absent from Normanshurst.

Yours sincerely

S.E.F Huggins (Mrs)

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 209 Suffolk College Student Welfare Officer

2005-09-17T02:40:00.000-07:00

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

Lowestoft Fire station
PO Box 54
Lowestoft
NR32 2QA

Date 3rd June 1999

Dear Miss Davies,

Thank you for your letter dated 24th May 1999.

I am most disappointed by the contents and intent to deny witnesses relevant to Firefighter Hydes case.
With respect, your assertion that the hearing will be conducted congruent to natural justice seems hollow and stultified by your action.

Once more I can assure you that the four disputed officers are implicated by responsibility to "relevant facts" in the case. The literal interpretation being:

Relevant; Bearing or pertinent to the matter in hand, Oxford English Dictionary.

Fact; What happened, Holland & Webb 1996.

Relevance and Admissibility; A fact will be relevant if it enables the court to reach a conclusion on the issues before it, Holland & Webb 1996.

Circuitous as it may be I also refer you back to para 7 annex D of the relevant guidance note. This clearly states the application for witnesses is to the disciplinary body. The situation so far seems to indicate it is you that currently holds this position. Can you clarify if this is correct?

Moving through the relevant paragraph the choice of words used connote a subjective test. It is for the member t decide which witnesses to call based on what he/she believes are the relevant facts. He/she then informs the disciplinary body. At first sight this may suggest an open invitation to vexatious practice. As may be, the regulations (surprisingly) require the member to make no justification for his witnesses being relevant other than his/her desire.

As such it is abundantly clear the member has a statutory right to the witnesses he/she desires as relevant. This reason should not be interfered with without good reason.

The defence notified you of the required witnesses in more than reasonable time. At the same time we have responded positively to your demand for further information as to the relevance of the disputed witnesses. Bearing in mind that you requested such information without statutory authority, we have surpassed the mark of reasonableness.

I would be pleased if you could reciprocate our reasonable position and demonstrate good faith by providing the relevant desired witnesses.

Once more may I express my concern on the extent of your involvement in this case. I note Mrs Campbell is prima facie now the clerk to the hearing. To reiterate, I would be grateful if you can confirm your current role. Given that it is you who is screening witnesses I sense you have assumed a role compatible with that commonly referred to as Investigating officer/convening officer.

Finally we are advised that your intervention and the actions associated merit the initiation and application of further formal grievances. Unfortunately such action is costly in resources for both parties especially, in terms of time and administration. Most certainly we do not wish to pursue further grievances unless it is absolutely necessary. For this reason and to retain a reasonable position Ff Hyde and myself will refrain from this action until your response is received. We hope it is reasonable to assume that will incur little delay.

I look forward to your reply on all the points raised above.

Yours faithfully

A Wigglesworth BSc, MBA, G.I.Fire.E.

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 208 Advice for school Visits to Halesworth Fire Station

2005-09-17T02:37:00.000-07:00

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

Defence team reflections to Doc 207

In two words "not unexpected."

The Suffolk HQ mole and general rumour mill had predicted that the prosecution would not go ahead as stipulated by Mrs Campbell in Doc 193.

Sadly in using her initiative Mrs Campbell had assumed the prosecution hearing would be at Lowestoft and did not confirm this before posting Doc 193 to Firefighter Hyde and his representative.

In particular, ACFO Seager had not envisaged the hearing taking place at any other location than Brigade Headquarters in Ipswich. All in all to hold the hearing away from Brigade Headquarters would mean isolating the presiding officer from ACFO Seager’s Command Power influence and direction.

The final straw and deciding factor on this was taken when the voluminous defence case file was received at Brigade Headquarters at approx 10.30 hours 2nd June 1999.

DO Graham Smith who shared an office with the presiding officer DO peter Ludford expressed acute concern to ACFO Seager over the content of the case file and his lack of confidence in the conduct of the case. Acting on these concerns and after further discussion ACFO Seager took steps to cancel the prosecution hearing for 7th June 1999 in favour of obtaining further advice and listing the case to be at Brigade Headquarters.

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 207 Leiston Firefighter Vacancies

2005-09-17T02:34:00.000-07:00

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

Suffolk County Council
Fire Service
A Wigglesworth Esq
Lowestoft Fire Station
Lowestoft
NR32 2QA

PER/JC/SIS
Mrs J Campbell
(01473) 588954
2nd June 1999

Dear Mr Wigglesworth,

Fire Services (Discipline) Regulations, 1985
Accused member – Mr M J Hyde

Further to my letter of 25th May, 1999 this is to confirm that the summary hearing regarding the above, arranged for 7th June, 1999 has been postponed.

The hearing will be rearranged as soon as possible and I will notify you of the new date and arrangements.
If you have any queries regarding this please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely

J Campbell
Personnel Officer

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 206 Halesworth Fire Safety

2005-09-17T02:31:00.000-07:00

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

Lowestoft Fire station
PO Box 54
Lowestoft
NR32 2QA
2nd June 1999

Dear DO Smith,

Discipline Case – Ff M Hyde

I enclose the documents to which the defence may rely for the hearing scheduled for 7th June 1999.

I apologise for the late delivery of your copy, which was unavoidable. Indeed, I have only been given 6 days notice. In fact the need to service you which these documents has inevitably led to me having to cancel my holiday arrangements this week and over the weekend.

As ACFO Seager said, through Mrs Campbell, this case will proceed on 7th June 1999 whatever and without the normal statutory notification if necessary.

I look forward to seeing you on Monday. In the meantime I will produce a further bundle for the presiding officer and the witness stand. If you have any further questions please do not hestitate to contact me.

Finally the FBU Brigade Committee have asked FF I Townes if he can attend to compile a verbatim record of the proceedings. I assume that unless notified that you have no objections to your own and others words being recorded in this way.

Yours faithfully

A Wigglesworth BSc, MBA, G.I.Fire.E.

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 205 Sudbury Fire Station Advice for School Visits

2005-09-14T00:09:00.000-07:00

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

Wednesday June 2nd 1999

Prior to Firefighter Hyde’s Fire Services (Discipline) Regulations prosecution hearing 7th June 1999 a defence case file was sent to prosecution officer DO Graham Smith. It was given to an officer travelling to Ipswich at 09.00 hours and for delivery to DO Smith. The file itself contained over 150 documents which comprised a full record of the prosecution case record and other relevant documents arising from Firefighter Hyde’s contracted appointment to the position of Temporary Leading Firefighter 25th September 1999.

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 204 Sudbury RFU

2005-09-14T00:08:00.000-07:00

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

Doc 203 – How Ironic?

Especially the understanding and acceptance outlined under condition one.
The Brigade offer and accept a notification for a variation in acting up to Leading firefighter will be 6 weeks by mutual consent. It should also be noted this facility applies to "acting up" and not temporary. Temporary appointments bring better salary terms and acknowledged as longer-term appointments.
So just how much notice was Firefighter Hyde given when unlawfully instructed to step back down to Firefighter? (see Doc 25)
The answer was twelve days! So quite a while short of the Brigades standard enshrined the all singing all dancing agreement that is Doc 203.

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 203 Sudbury Fire Engine

2005-09-14T00:06:00.000-07:00

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

Draft Agreement between Suffolk Fire Service and the Fire Brigades Union
Arrangements for Acting Up to the Rank of Leading Firefighter – Wholetime personnel

All those members of the Brigade who undertake acting up duties will be able to opt in via written acceptance of the following conditions:

1. Once opted into the scheme, that person can be required to act up. Other than in exceptional circumstances, acting up will be at the normal place of work. Opting out of the scheme can be notified to the Chief fire Officer at any time, although a notice period of 6 weeks will be required before the opting out comes into effect. The period of 6 weeks may be varied by mutual consent.

2. Personnel opting into the scheme will receive appropriate training to include incident report completion and tactical risk assessment. This training will be incorporated into the wholetime training programmes.

3. The criteria that will be applied when accepting opt in notification for acting up to Leading Firefighter will be either:-

A) A firefighter qualified by examination for promotion to Leading Firefighter and who has been assessed at an internal assessment board as suitable for temporary promotion or acting up; or

B) A firefighter qualified by examination for promotion to Leading Firefighter but who has not applied for assessment.

4. In cases where a person acts up a flexible duty officer will be mobilised to all incidents attended by that person where he or she would otherwise be in sole charge of the incident.
The fire Brigades Union accepts that substantive rank holders have a contractual obligation to accept acting up duties as and when required. This agreement is based on the principle that persons defined as unsuitable for temporary promotion or acting up duties as the result of a promotion assessment board will not be accepted into the scheme.

Malcolm Alcock Chief Fire Officer
Chris Hayward FBU

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 202 Sudbury Firefighter

2005-09-14T00:03:00.000-07:00

Suffolk County Council

Fire Service

Mr. M. Hyde
Lowestoft
PERS/SD/JC/KMD
Miss S. Davies
(01473) 588954

1st June 1999

Dear Mr Hyde,

Arrangements for Acting Up to the Rank of Leading Firefighter

You will be aware from Routine Order, that the Chief Fire Officer and the Fire Brigades Union have recently agreed arrangements for wholetime firefighters acting up to the rank of leading firefighter. A copy of the

Agreement is enclosed for your information.

According to my records, you meet the criteria set out in paragraph 3 of the Agreement. The purpose of this letter, therefore, is to invite you to be included on the list of wholetime firefighters who may be called upon to act up, in accordance with the enclosed Agreement.

If you opt in now but at a later date want to opt out, you may do so by giving (6 weeks) written notice of your decision; such letters should be addressed to the Chief Fire Officer, marked for my attention.
Please complete and return to the Personnel Department the second copy of this letter, indicating your decision about acting up. If we have not heard from you by 30th June, 1999, we will not include your name on the list of personnel willing to act up. The full list of personnel opting in will be published in Routine Orders during July.

If you have any queries about the content of this letter, please contact your supervisory officer or me.

Yours sincerely

Sarah Davies
Personnel Manager

I do/do not* wish to opt in to the acting Up arrangements referred to in this letter.

Signed…………………….Date…………………….
*delete as applicable

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 201 Suffolk County Council Fire Strike Fact Sheet

2005-09-14T00:01:00.000-07:00

Lowestoft Fire station
PO Box 54
Lowestoft
NR 32 2QA
Tel 01502 403842

1st June 1999

Dear CFO Alcock,

I am instructed to write to you with regard to disciplinary matters by Miss Sarah Davies who is the Suffolk Fire Service personnel manager. Miss Davies appears to be a little misguided with respect to the provision of witnesses prescribed under the Fire Service (Discipline) Regulations. Mistakenly she seems to think I have authority to request your attendance as a witness to a disciplinary hearing. Clearly that privileged authority (instruction to attend) only rests with the hearing body. It definitely does not reside with the clerk Miss Davies. Of course unlike you she has no trained knowledge of the Discipline Regulations.

Despite knowing I have no right to order you to attend a disciplinary hearing I have no desire to upset Miss Davies. Hence I thought it best to follow here order.

In consequence, I am writing to you in my capacity as the representative for Ff Hyde.

I would be pleased if you would agree to attend his hearing as a witness for his defence. This will include the presentation of a multitude of documents in which you are mentioned and central. As such this evidence will benefit greatly from your explanation and expert interpretation of the material facts of the case.

I look forward to hearing from you and hope you will be able to assist in the hearing to which no date is set as yet.

Yours faithfully

A Wigglesworth BSc, MBA, GIFireE.

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 200 Gay Ipswich Fireman

2005-09-12T00:28:00.000-07:00

Lowestoft Fire station
PO Box 54
Lowestoft
NR 32 2QA
Tel 01502 403842

1st June 1999

Dear ACFO Seager,

Despite knowing I have no right to order you to attend a disciplinary hearing I have no desire to upset Miss Davies. Hence I thought it best to follow here order.

In consequence, I am writing to you in my capacity as the representative for Ff Hyde.

I am also led to believe that you are an FBU member and must therefore be more than happy to act as a witness for a fellow member.

I look forward to hearing from you and hope you will be able to assist in the hearing to which no date is set as yet.

Yours faithfully

A Wigglesworth BSc, MBA, GIFireE.

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 199 Suffolk Fire Engine Accident

2005-09-12T00:24:00.000-07:00

Re Doc 198 reference Ff Stebbings and ACFO Seager’s plea for Natural Justice.

This is with regard to the discipline prosecution of Firefighter Phil Stebbing’s in 1995.

The basic facts are that during a training drill designed and organised by Sub Officer Roy Mitchell, at Lowestoft Fire Station, Phil Stebbing’s, as driver of the Station engine managed to crash the damn thing and turn the vehicle on its side.

I will re-iterate the last bit. Yes it was only a training drill and the near-new shiny 100 grand plus Volvo ended up crash out on its side with the rest of the crew slumped inside the cab. Hmm good job it wasn’t a flaky Bedford with an unprotected cab.

The crew included Firefighter Jim Bussey, Firefighter Jeff Long, Firefighter David Halliday, and possibly Firefighter Ian Pettit. Physical injuries sustained by Firefighter David Halliday led to his early retirement (ill health) soon after. Firefighter Jeff Long also departed the service on ill health some years later and still claiming to be traumatised by the "Great Lowestoft Fire Station Fire Engine Disaster."

As For Sub Officer Roy Mitchell as the chief pooh-bah of the training exercise he was not sitting on the engine when it fell over. No reports at the scene say that as the excessively speeding fire Engine careered across the Lowestoft Fire Station drill yard he was seen running backwards for his life to take shelter while at the same time wildly waving his arms and the rest of his body towards driver Phil. Seemed that after Sub Officer Roy had worked Firefighter Phil up into frenzy for the creation of reality, right at the last moment he wanted him to tone it down a big and take his foot off the flat out gas pedal. Seemed that Firefighter Phil twigged and got the message. Unfortunately, it was a little bit too late as he swapped accelerator for brake pedal. Locked brakes, Fire engine out of control, bit of a shimmy to the left then right, up on two wheels, bit of an empty feeling in the tummy for the riders, and a crash bang and wallop as the vehicle slid over on it side. Wot with all the noise and the seismic vibration reverberating throughout the station it wasn’t long before a crowd of brigade onlookers gathered to assist the emerging battered and bruised Firefighters from the crumpled Fire Engine. In terms of a Carlsberg probably ad "Probably the most realistic fire training exercise in the world." Ever!

However, what was quite handy was the fact that was a gaggle of senior Suffolk Fire Officers were upstairs on the station for an Officers training day. Health and Safety if memory is correct. Even more handy then, that is Officers being right on the spot to get stuck in with the investigation. At the time it happened they were being lectured to by Sub Officer Pete (Redders) Redbourn who witnessed the whole unfolding episode through the windows. Later dryly remarking that he thought the Engine was going a bit fast as it flashed by. Then as the Engine fell over allegedly calmly turning to the class of Officers and saying, ‘ I think you’re wanted outside for an accident.’

Of course in the annals of most Fire Brigades there are usually a few legendary scraps and bangs with fire Engines. Difference is that this mega Fire engine disaster happened on the home fire station during a supposedly controlled training exercise.

Well anyway once the injured had been treated and everybody had dusted themselves down it was time for the recriminations to begin.

Seems that Firefighter Phil, a long serving officer, had been wound up by Sub Officer Roy. You see it wasn’t long since Roy had transferred onto the watch from the training department upstairs. Being a high volume in your face character, complete with an extreme cussing vocabulary he was of the opinion that his inferiors should jump at his request. Hence his incessant pressured demand to Firefighter Phil to make the drill realistic. And the parting jibe to Phil to ‘give it some’ as the crew mounted the Fire Engine to drive round the block before entering the drill yard.

Having taken a high powered tongue lashing from Sub Officer Roy, Phil’s muttered response as he took the drivers seat was, ‘right, if he wants me to give it plenty, I’ll give plenty. And as explained above he did give it plenty. Plenty enough to create Suffolk Fire Service’s most realistic fire training exercise ever. Plus a broken Fire engine and two badly injured Firefighters.

As might be expected the powers that be were not best pleased about the "Great Lowestoft Fire Station Fire Engine Disaster." Very embarrassing for the Chief to explain to his employers, the Suffolk Council elected members, I suppose. Hmm best not tell them I think.

So with the Brigades senior Officers baying for blood somebody had to be punished. Well after an investigation the belligerent Sub Officer Roy was completely exonerated. Strange.

Instead the full weight of responsibility fell on Firefighter Phil. However, Firefighter Phil, and this is where ACFO Seagers reference in Doc 198 stems from, was in a bit of bother with his trade union the Fire Brigades Union. You see just shortly before the accident Firefighter Phil had decided he wanted to do wholetime retained duty. Ops, you see that was against the rules of the union and Firefighter Phil had been reported to the union. So having taken up wholetime retained the FBU declined to represent him at his disciplinary prosecution. As for ACFO Seager he was appalled by the union’s stance and took up the issue with the union on Firefighter Phil’s behalf. Yes according to ACFO Seager the FBU’s action was shameful and a breach of natural justice. Predictably the FBU refused to relent or be influenced by ACFO Seager’s natural justice intervention.

Never mind in the end Firefighter Phil came up trumps and the final outcome of his prosecution for causing the "Great Lowestoft Fire Station Fire Engine Disaster" was pretty minor. Yep a caution for near writing off a 150 grand fire engine, injuring at least two other firefighters and endangering the lives a host of others is pretty good.

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 198 Suffolk Fire Strike Latest News

2005-09-12T00:22:00.000-07:00

Lowestoft Fire station
PO Box 54
Lowestoft
NR 32 2QA
Tel 01502 403842

1st June 1999

Dear ACFO Seager,

Despite knowing I have no right to order you to attend a disciplinary hearing I have no desire to upset Miss Davies. Hence I thought it best to follow here order.

In consequence, I am writing to you in my capacity as the representative for Ff Hyde.

I look forward to having seen your plea in support of Ff Stebbing’s (see Doc 199) in 1995 and your unswerving written commitment to the ideals of natural justice I naturally assume your willingness to assist.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully

A Wigglesworth BSc, MBA, GIFireE.

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 197 Halesworth Firefighter Vacancies

2005-09-12T00:19:00.000-07:00

Lowestoft Fire station
PO Box 54
Lowestoft
NR 32 2QA
Tel 01502 403842

1st June 1999

Dear DCFO Smith,

Despite knowing I have no right to order you to attend a disciplinary hearing I have no desire to upset Miss Davies. Hence I thought it best to follow here order.

In consequence, I am writing to you in my capacity as the representative for Ff Hyde.

I look forward to hearing from you and hope you will be able to assist in the hearing, for which no date is set at this moment.

Yours faithfully

A Wigglesworth BSc, MBA, GIFireE.

The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 196 Gay Suffolk Fireman

2005-09-12T00:17:00.000-07:00

Overview of Events June 1999