The SFE - Doc 6 Debenham Fireman

EAST ANGLIAN DAILY TIMES

14th January 1997

Investigation into claims brigade boss drank while on duty.

FIRE CHIEF IN DRINKS PROBE

Also, the other memorable quotes,

The head of Suffolk’s fire service is under investigation for allegedly drinking while on duty. Tony Baker is also a magistrate…………It is believed members of his own staff made the complaint against him…………..Mr Baker, 49 has been on sick leave since last week………….The alleged incident is understood to have happened at a lunch at Normanshurst Fire station, Lowestoft, a week before Christmas. Mr Baker is alleged to have drunk beer and wine at the annual meal in the station mess, which was attended by about 30 firefighters. It is believed two written complaints were made… …………………………….The Suffolk brigade’s alcohol policy came into force two months ago and states: “ From the date of the issue of this order, it is prohibited for any fire service employee to consume any amount of alcohol whilst on duty.”…. …………orders, sanctioned by Mr Baker himself state: “ The county fire officer has overall responsibility for the implementation of the county council policy within the fire service.”………….. Mr Baker was yesterday said to be “unavailable” by his wife,……, at the couples detached house in Ipswich.

What happened next ?
A few weeks later Mr Baker retired on grounds of permanent ill health. At the same time it was circulated that the Hertfordshire CFO, appointed to investigate Mr Baker, conclude no case to answer. As for Mr Baker, shortly afterwards it appears that his permanent illness cleared, as he was appointed a non-executive director of the East Anglian Ambulance service. A role he still holds according to, about us – board at http://eastanglianambulance.co.uk.

At the same time it appears that a false brigade myth was born which established that firefighter Y was responsible for the two complaints made against Mr Baker. The facts are possibly rather more qualified.

Firstly Y was not present, or a witness, to the consumption of alcohol by Mr Baker at the Lowestoft Christmas dinner. The complainants consisted of SubO John Tiffen and another unknown uniformed individual present at the Lowestoft bar at the same time. As for SubO Tiffen’s motivation to report the incident it seems he was particularly inflamed by Mr Baker’s verbal comments when questioned about his drinking in uniform. It seems that Mr Baker’s reply as to why he was drinking was, ‘its POR.’ When the complainant asked what POR was, it is alleged he said, ‘ Privilege of Rank.’ At the same time he may even have pointed to and tapped his epaulettes.

So what was Y’s involvement in all this?
On return to duty at Lowestoft he was approached by SubO Tiffen who told Y all about the incident and asked Y, as the local FBU official, to make a complaint about Mr Baker’s behaviour. It appears that Y advised SubO Tiffen that as he was not present at the time of the incident he could not make any complaint himself, and if SubO Tiffen felt so upset by the situation he should write out a statement himself. When SubO Tiffen wrote out a statement Y then passed the document up the line of command. So, Y’s involvement in the demise of CFO Baker was restricted to that of messenger person and no more.

Whatever, the departure of CFO Baker soured the brigade atmosphere with rumour and counter rumour running rife that centred on Y being the architect of Mr Bakers departure.