The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 162 Bungay Fire Station

Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales then check out “The Suffolk Hyde Affair” at http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/

Analysis Charge Sheet Doc 161



……Under the Code of Offences against Discipline contained in the Schedule of the Fire Services (Discipline) regulations 1985, you are charged as follows:
……………………………………………………………………………………………………..Insubordination……………………………………………………………………

In that you did, on Thursday, 4 June, 1998, inappropriately use the near miss/hazardous situation reporting procedure to make unsubstantiated allegations of premeditated harassment and bullying by the Deputy County Fire Officer, which words and/or act are insubordinate.

The disciplinary charge chosen by Assistant Chief Fire Officer Kenneth Seager with the help of Divisional Officer Colin Trumpeter-Hodge is Insubordination!

Yes that’s what it says, Insubordination.

The UK Fire Service (Discipline) Regulations 1985 were derived and rooted within military tradition. Therefore, a charge of Insubordination infers mutinous behaviour and most specifically a refusal, by word (i.e. I will not) - act (non-compliance to instructions) or demeanour (rebellious reply etc) to the direct order or instructions of a superior officer. That being a uniformed superior officer. For instance, for the charge of Insubordination to be appropriate in this case would have required a senior officer to directly instruct X that he must not use the near miss system. There was an absence of such direct instruction during the creation and transmission of X’s near miss. Had the near miss been intercepted, as it might be assessed that that was the case by DO Graham Smith June 4th 1998 (Doc 65); and he had instructed/ordered X to withdraw the near miss and the latter had refused then that could equate to Insubordination. Again no superior uniformed officer took it upon themselves to do just that at any time. There was no inter-personal relationship of superior to inferior officer during the creation and transmission of the relevant near-miss. Insubordination was a non-starter.

So why might the experienced (20 years plus service) and fully trained ACFO Kenneth Seager elect for a misconceived charge?

Could it be because ACFO Kenneth Seager is incompetent and a complete phuckwit perhaps?

Was ACFO Kenneth Seager lent upon by the Chief or Deputy County Fire Officer to come out all guns blazing for collateral purposes? After all it was blatantly obvious to any person of average mental aptitude that Deputy Chief Fire Officer Simon Smith had inflicted an unlawful act on X. So, some justification for such action was required with legal action beckoning on the horizon. Of course all seems to be to putting the cart before the horse?

But then again maybe it was because of what it states in the official guidance document for the Fire Service (Discipline) Regulations 1985.
…………….. Page 5 Annex A Schedule of Offences: The Code of Discipline……………………………….

…………Other Misconduct
4. Serious Offences
The Code of Discipline does not distinguish between offences which are serious and those which would only merit a severe penalty if they were repeated several times. This is because such differentiation is not possible without knowing the circumstances of the offence. As a general rule, however, certain categories of offence could merit severe penalties even if only committed on one occasion, for example:

a. Any offences involving theft………………………………………………………..

b. Any offences directly contributing to a failure of the brigade to carry out its operational duty……………………………………………

c. ANY OFFENCE UNDERMINING THE DISCIPLINE OF THE BRIGADE OF THE BRIGADE, FOR EXAMPLE DISOBEDIENCE TO ORDERS OR INSUBORDINATION.

d. Any offence which may render a member of the brigade unfit for operational duty (pissed)………………………………………………

So perhaps the severe punishment being prescribed could be justified by the above guidance? Is that why the negligent, incompetent, malicious or just plain stupid ACFO Ken Seager pegged the charge as Insubordination?

Finally, as remarked earlier Insubordination is a mutinous offence and remarkably difficult to prove with safety. Indeed, a charge that is extremely rare in the UK Fire Service. Seems the more wise Brigade Investigating Officers choose to leave well alone. UK Fire service Discipline statistics collected in the early 1990’s showed that in 2 out of three years there was no Insubordination charges made against UK Firefighters. In the third example a total of 3 charges were made across 50 plus brigades and amongst a total workforce of roughly 50000. All involved violence. So Insubordination discipline cases in the UK Fire Service are some exception.

Especially an exception when they involve the alleged offender filling in the wrong form and being the victim of unlawful action by his wilfully carried out by a superior.