The SFE - Doc 148 Felixstowe Firefighter Vacancies
ANALYSIS Doc 147
THE STATEMENT OF SARAH DAVIES 27TH JULY 1998
Once again is it a case of when short of weighty substance and a wad of documentation it’s best the investigator opts for width rather than quality. Lets recap that the investigation has been on the run since 10th June 1998. Yet it’s only at the last push up the intrepid trumpet player from Ipswich, DO Colin Hodge or Hog if spell checked decides to obtain a statement from Sarah Davies (now Meelan). And then we can add that both work out of Brigade Headquarters in Ipswich and must interact on a regular basis.
To this is there not is also a concern to the validity of Miss Davies statement which is no doubt distorted by near on 2 months of developments, conversations, moulded memories and inspired loyalties. For certain the statements contemporary reliability has been stretched beyond elasticity to actual snap.
The date the statement and supporting comments in DO Hodge’s notebook also throw up a conundrum. You see the Brigades Divisional Officer rota for July 1998 shows our trumpeter DO Hodge as being on rota and off duty. But then again as some people say “you can never do enough for a good firm”. So, maybe Colin the trumpeter volunteered to come into work and take down Miss Davies particulars on a statement FOC as a favour on 27th July 1998. After all stranger things have been known!
……………………………. He was quering the lack of medical advice and asking to visit HQ to see any Doctors statement the Brigade had obtained in connection with the decision regarding sick pay entitlement. I told him that it had not been necessary for the Brigade to refer the matter to the Medical Adviser since AW had told ADO Hayden that his absence was directly attributable to his Accident and that he had caused his accident through his own lack of care.
Miss Davies seems to forget by commission or omission that AW told her that her and Deputy Chief Fire Officer Smith’s action was unlawful. As to the plea that AW had told ADO Hayden the disputed absence was the result of the Accident May 1st 1998 there was no independent or impartial evidence in existence to support that contention as was further pointed out to Miss Davies. She also seems to have omitted that aspect of the discussion from the statement.
His manner and ignorance of employment law caused me no distress and I see no reason to pursue this point further.
Oh I see!
During my conversation with Mr Wigglesworth I told him very clearly that he should pursue the matter as a grievance, in the manner described in my letter dated 29th May 1998.
Perhaps this might be more believable if she had put that in writing. Sub Officer X says she is talking complete and utter bollocks.
I gave him this advice on the basis that he did not say anything other than to pursue the procedural point about medical advice. Nothing he said seemed to change the situation as it appeared on 29th may 1998 i.e. he did not say he had hurt his back since 1st May (eg by a further fall) nor suggest he had an underlying back problem.
Miss Davies is quite right X did not say anything in relation to these matters. Reason being they were irrelevant as the action that Deputy Chief Fire Officer Simon Smith and his sidekick Miss Davies had put in motion was obviously unlawful.
I informed the Deputy County Fire Officer (by e-mail) of my conversation with Mr Wigglesworth on the afternoon of 4th June 1998 (Doc 55)…..
Yes no doubt being given a logical explanation of her unlawful confederation with the DCFO Miss Davies felt it prudent to run to the DCFO for help and guidance. The email was actually on the 3rd June 1998.
……..DO G Smith told me that Sub O Wigglesworth had reported the matter of his sick pay via the “near- miss” system. This approach (i.e. use off near miss system) was not discussed between myself and Sub O Wigglesworth previously, and I was completely unaware of the report until informed of it by DO Smith. I can confirm that I have not seen a copy of Sub O Wigglesworth’s near miss report (dated 4.6.98) until today.
Well lets get one thing straight the Near Miss report was not used to report the matter of the unlawful deduction made against X. The Near Miss was used to report the abusive behaviour of DCFO Simon Smith and its potential to cause physical and psychological harm to X and other future victims of the same unlawful act. If Miss Davies is correct then DO G Smith may have committed the disciplinary offence of Falsehood to add to his long history of violations.
Finally, in consideration of Miss Davies position in the management of Human Resources in the Brigade and part in the investigation its seems surprising she had not viewed the Near Miss until 27th July 1998.
But of course the bottom line is that the deduction conspired by DCFO Simon Smith and his sidekick Miss Davies was unlawful.
THE STATEMENT OF SARAH DAVIES 27TH JULY 1998
Once again is it a case of when short of weighty substance and a wad of documentation it’s best the investigator opts for width rather than quality. Lets recap that the investigation has been on the run since 10th June 1998. Yet it’s only at the last push up the intrepid trumpet player from Ipswich, DO Colin Hodge or Hog if spell checked decides to obtain a statement from Sarah Davies (now Meelan). And then we can add that both work out of Brigade Headquarters in Ipswich and must interact on a regular basis.
To this is there not is also a concern to the validity of Miss Davies statement which is no doubt distorted by near on 2 months of developments, conversations, moulded memories and inspired loyalties. For certain the statements contemporary reliability has been stretched beyond elasticity to actual snap.
The date the statement and supporting comments in DO Hodge’s notebook also throw up a conundrum. You see the Brigades Divisional Officer rota for July 1998 shows our trumpeter DO Hodge as being on rota and off duty. But then again as some people say “you can never do enough for a good firm”. So, maybe Colin the trumpeter volunteered to come into work and take down Miss Davies particulars on a statement FOC as a favour on 27th July 1998. After all stranger things have been known!
……………………………. He was quering the lack of medical advice and asking to visit HQ to see any Doctors statement the Brigade had obtained in connection with the decision regarding sick pay entitlement. I told him that it had not been necessary for the Brigade to refer the matter to the Medical Adviser since AW had told ADO Hayden that his absence was directly attributable to his Accident and that he had caused his accident through his own lack of care.
Miss Davies seems to forget by commission or omission that AW told her that her and Deputy Chief Fire Officer Smith’s action was unlawful. As to the plea that AW had told ADO Hayden the disputed absence was the result of the Accident May 1st 1998 there was no independent or impartial evidence in existence to support that contention as was further pointed out to Miss Davies. She also seems to have omitted that aspect of the discussion from the statement.
His manner and ignorance of employment law caused me no distress and I see no reason to pursue this point further.
Oh I see!
During my conversation with Mr Wigglesworth I told him very clearly that he should pursue the matter as a grievance, in the manner described in my letter dated 29th May 1998.
Perhaps this might be more believable if she had put that in writing. Sub Officer X says she is talking complete and utter bollocks.
I gave him this advice on the basis that he did not say anything other than to pursue the procedural point about medical advice. Nothing he said seemed to change the situation as it appeared on 29th may 1998 i.e. he did not say he had hurt his back since 1st May (eg by a further fall) nor suggest he had an underlying back problem.
Miss Davies is quite right X did not say anything in relation to these matters. Reason being they were irrelevant as the action that Deputy Chief Fire Officer Simon Smith and his sidekick Miss Davies had put in motion was obviously unlawful.
I informed the Deputy County Fire Officer (by e-mail) of my conversation with Mr Wigglesworth on the afternoon of 4th June 1998 (Doc 55)…..
Yes no doubt being given a logical explanation of her unlawful confederation with the DCFO Miss Davies felt it prudent to run to the DCFO for help and guidance. The email was actually on the 3rd June 1998.
……..DO G Smith told me that Sub O Wigglesworth had reported the matter of his sick pay via the “near- miss” system. This approach (i.e. use off near miss system) was not discussed between myself and Sub O Wigglesworth previously, and I was completely unaware of the report until informed of it by DO Smith. I can confirm that I have not seen a copy of Sub O Wigglesworth’s near miss report (dated 4.6.98) until today.
Well lets get one thing straight the Near Miss report was not used to report the matter of the unlawful deduction made against X. The Near Miss was used to report the abusive behaviour of DCFO Simon Smith and its potential to cause physical and psychological harm to X and other future victims of the same unlawful act. If Miss Davies is correct then DO G Smith may have committed the disciplinary offence of Falsehood to add to his long history of violations.
Finally, in consideration of Miss Davies position in the management of Human Resources in the Brigade and part in the investigation its seems surprising she had not viewed the Near Miss until 27th July 1998.
But of course the bottom line is that the deduction conspired by DCFO Simon Smith and his sidekick Miss Davies was unlawful.
posted by Bert Blythburgh at 12:14 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home