The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 270 Bedford Firefighter Vacancies

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

SUFFOLK FIRE SERVICE
FIRE SERVICE (DISCIPLINE) REGULATIONS, 1985


Fire Service Headquarters
Colchester road
Ipswich
IP4 4SS

Date : 21st September 1998

To: Sub Officer (854) AD Wigglesworth

Station: Training, Normanshurst

I enclose two copies of the transcript produced of your interview with DO Hodge and DO smith, at Normanshurst, on Tuesday 18th August 1998.

Please read through the transcript and sign and date one copy and return it to me at BHQ. If there is anything you believe is incorrectly transcribed then amend the copy, and return it signed and dated.

Please note that your failure to return a signed copy will not invalidate the transcript or make it inadmissible as evidence, should charges be brought against you at some future stage.


C Hodge

pp K.E. Seager
Assistant County Fire Officer
Brigade investigating officer

Enc: 2 x copies of transcript of interview, date 18th August 1998

To
Mr AD Wigglesworth

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 269 Bedford Fire Station Open Day

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

Mr A Wigglesworth
Lowestoft

Thompsons Solicitors
Congress House
Great Russell Street
London WC1B 3LW


CDJ/WIGGLESWORTH/L98/60166


Your Ref CDJ/WIGGLESWORTH/L98/60166

19th September 1998

Dear Mr Jones,

I enclose some of the health and safety records and details of the workplace inspections that I have carried out in recent times. All of the inspections were carried out as a result of me being the democratically elected FBU health and safety representative for Lowestoft Fire Station.

As you will no doubt see, my last inspection was in June when I made an official FBU health and safety inspection of the fire safety offices at Lowestoft. This was after an official approach from ADO Eric Smith to carry out the inspection due to me being accepted as the station FBU health and safety representative. Accordingly, I countersigned all brigade paperwork in respect to that visit. That paperwork was then sent on the DO Hodge who is responsible for all brigade fire safety offices and facilities. That being the same DO Hodge who currently contests that I am not an FBU health and safety representative. I would hazard a guess he is currently unaware of my signature on that document. Also, that ADO Eric Smith made an official approach to me because as far as he and the other officers at Lowestoft were concerned I am the recognised FBU health and safety representative.

I would be happy for you to make an approach to him for the document he currently has in his possession that records the FBU inspection of Lowestoft fire safety offices in June 1998.






Yours sincerely


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

Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 268 Sprowston Fireman Vacancies

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

Spare

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 267 Sprowston Firefighter Vacancies

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


Suffolk County Council

Fire Service

Mr A D WigglesworthSub
C/o Training Department
Normanshurst

Your ref
Our ref MHA/MLA
Ask for CFO Allcock
Tel (01473) 588969

18th September 1998

Dear Sub Officer Wigglesworth

I refer to your memorandum dated 14th September 1998 in which you make a request to revert to the rank of firefighter. I have carefully considered it, but unfortunately I am not in a position to make an informed judgement at this time.

I am awaiting a reply from Dr Deacon which will indicate his professional opinion on the results of you medical of the 15th September 1998. I require this information to ensure that you are physically and mentally fit to fulfil your duties and to add value to the decision I will make.

In the meantime, I am concerned that you feel unable to carry out the responsibilities of a junior officer and I am therefore granting you leave to enable you to have a period of reflection away from those duties and the perceived pressures you feel. I hope that you will use this time constructively and take into account the full consequences of a reversion in rank on your career and pension entitlements.

There will be no need for you to return to duty on the 28th September 1998. This added leave will be with full pay and will not be deducted from your annual entitlement.

I will write to you again when I have made a decision on your request.

Yours sincerely

M H Allcock
Supreme Chief Fire Officer

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 266 Sprowston Fire Station Open Day

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


HSE
Health & Safety Executive


Mr A D Wigglesworth BSc, G.I.Fire.E.
Lowestoft
Suffolk

Our Ref: I\typ\consumer\sept\J28\EMB
18 September 1998

Dear Mr Wigglesworth

I refer to your letter of 10 September requesting HSE assistance at your prosecution hearing, and in particular the attendance of my inspector Mr Hawkins as an expert witness.

It is part of HSE’s general policy that HSE inspectors do not act as experts to any party in any legal dispute. We are often asked to support a party to proceedings and we have to explain that it is our duty to target our resources and ensure inspectors maximise their time in the field engaged in inspection and investigation. Therefore I have to reply that Mr Hawkins cannot act as your expert witness.

However, in response to your request for guidance:

The duties of safety representatives are explained in the enclosed leaflet “Consulting Employees on Health and Safety”, and the references contained in the leaflet;

“Near miss reporting” is explored in the HSE book (HSG65) “Successful health and safety management”, available from HSE Books, at £12.50.

Employers have a general duty under Section 2 of the health and Safety at Work Act 1974 to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health and safety and welfare of their employees at work. “Welfare” is normally meant to cover such things as seating, washing facilities etc but “health” includes mental health and as such the employers duty extends to issues such as occupational stress. I enclose an HSE press release on the subject which also has the address of HSE books. I understand a new booklet entitled “Help on work – related stress – a short guide” (ref: IND (G) 281) is to be published shortly too.

I hope this is useful. You may wish to approach your union representative who may be familiar with these publications and in a position to advise you.

Yours sincerely


R N Parkes
HM Principal Inspector of Health and Safety

39 Baddow Road, Chelmsford, Essex CM2 0HL
Tel: 01245 706200 Fax: 01245 706222

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 265 Suffolk Firework Advice for November 2006

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

Emergent Proposition (Doc 67) Reinforced by the events recorded in Doc 205, 224, 225 and now 263?

Doc 67 as stated below

Emergent Proposition Fire Service Command Power syndrome Theory (CPST)*

Fire Service CPST practitioner’s who believe they or their colleagues are threatened, undermined or subject to resistance by those of lower status are motivated toward collateral retaliation. Retaliation measures may be overt or covert.


*The proposition is generated from the development of this case study and the behaviour reported in Doc 65. Collaborating evidence is available pre Doc 32 “The Suffolk Hyde Affair” See: April 2005 Archives
http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/

Therefore the proposition comes from hindsight and repetitive experience. Full knowledge of “what happens next”? So the proposition is not derived by some grand scientific theorising. It arises from real events


So are the events and actions recorded in Doc 67, 224, 225 and 263 compatible with the emergent proposition? Is it sustained by reality?

One way of thinking about it, and we hasten probably not the only possible thought, is that:

Isn’t it strange that an highly experienced and legally trained officer, in this case Assistant Chief Fire Officer Kenneth Seager, would knowingly abuse his own position commit a disciplinary offence for the purpose of bolstering the evidence of his own charge. As evidenced by Doc 263.

What is the force that compels a senior Fire Officer to act in such a reckless manner? FIRE SERVICE COMMAND POWER SYNDROME THEORY?

It is argued that the events reported in Doc 205, 224, 225 and 263 reinforce the emergent proposition above.

The Suffolk fire Experience - Doc 264 Suffolk Crucial Crew Arrangements 2007

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

COMMENT DOC 263


Firstly it might be prudent to ask if Assistant Chief Fire Officer Kenneth Seager had taken leave of his senses. Or is it plain arrogance to the responsibilities of his Brigade Investigating Officer role. Or may be plain contempt toward his victim?

1. ACFO Ken Seager is the Brigade Investigating Officer. His role involves, or at least it should involve, complete non-personal involvement in the creation and process of evidence. His statement (Doc 263) violates this fundamental principle and its association with a fair trail.

2. By the quirk of his Investigating role and the major flaw in the Fire Service (Discipline) Regulations 1985 he is also responsible for prosecutions. In effect he is privileged with complete access to all documentation and records retrieved during an investigation. So by the time ACFO Ken Seager constructed his statement on 17th September 1998 he had been able to receive verbal reports and view all records and documentation gathered by his assistants. In a nut shell it is patently clear that his statement was written after he had obtained access to all, or virtually all, the evidence gathered in the case.

3. The abusive behaviour of Suffolk Fire Service’s boy wonder is analogous with Crown Prosecution Service personnel putting in witness statements to support a case after looking at what everybody else has said.

4. Overall. Abuse of Authority in the extreme?

5. What is most disappointing about this is that this abuse was supported by the County’s legally trained Chief Executive (‘I am a practicising solicitor’) Mrs Linda Homer. Also subsequently, embroiled in the Birmingham City Council postal vote scam. Also, blatantly ignored by Suffolk County Council Legal Department solicitors Kieth Stevens, Alan Gillespie and Chris Jackson.

6. And what of the guidance document that defines the extent and limitations of those using or abusing the Fire Service (Discipline) Regulations 1985? See page 9 par 8

Personal involvement in allegations

If the investigating officer receives a report or allegation of a matter in which he has been involved or against a member of a brigade with whom he has some personal connection so that he cannot be seen to investigate the matter impartially, he should so inform the chief officer who should appoint another officer, as near as possible in rank, to take his place. If necessary, another fire authority should be requested to provide the services of its brigade’s investigating officer.

7. Oh what a naughty Firefighter Mr Seager

8. It appears he may have committed another offence prescribed under the Fire Service (Discipline) Regulations 1985. Another offence of Abuse of Authority perhaps. But that’s not surprising is it. He likes that!

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 263 Princes Street Fireman Vacancies

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

Statement of: KENNETH EDWARD SEAGER

Age : 43

Occupation: A.C.F.O.

Address: DORIC LODGE, SPROUGHTON

Telephone No. 01473 666666

This statement (consisting of 2 pages each signed by me) is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.

Dated the 17th day of September 1998

Signature: K Seager ACFO.

This statement was taken by ………………………..at…………………………..
………………………………………..on………………………………………….I read it over to ………………………………….. and he/she read and signed it in my presence.



Signature

On Thursday, 6th August 1998 at 10.00 hours, I was chairing a meeting of 6the EMS pilot study implementation group. I had been informed some weeks prior by StnO Parsons that Sub Officer Wigglesworth would be representing the training department. At 1000, I contacted the training department to ascertain Sub O Wigglesworth’s whereabouts as he did not show up. I spoke to Sub Officer Davey, who told me that he thought Sub Officer Wigglesworth had taken leave for the day. The meeting went ahead without a training representative. I did not at any time issue an email or other document…..
Signature K Seager

Page 2

.. cancelling or postponing the meeting for the 6th August. K Seager


Signature K Seager

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 262 Princes Street Firefighter Vacancies

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


ALLINGTON NHS HEALTH TRUST

HEALTH CARE IN THE COMMUNITY

Occupational Health Service
Allington NHS Trust
C/O The Ipswich Hospital
Heath Road
Ipswich
Suffolk
IP4 5PD

Mr M Alcock
Chief fire Officer
Suffolk Fire Service Headquarters
Colchester Road
IPSWICH
IP4 4SS

For the attention of Mr Smith, Deputy Chief Fire Officer

16th September 1998

Private & Confidential

Dear Mr Alcock

Re: Anthony David Wigglesworth. Lowestoft. D.o.b. 10.07.57

Further to the personal referral by Deputy, Mr smith, and my telephone conversation with Mr Smith on the afternoon 15th September 1998, I have seen and examined Fire-fighter Anthony David Wigglesworth on the afternoon of 15th September 1998 at Bury St Edmunds Fire Station. The referral was with respect to Mr Wigglesworth’s fitness for operational duties and assessment of his psychological state in light of stress reaction having been raised as an issue by Mr Wigglesworth.

I understand from Mr Wigglesworth that he has had sickness absence in May/June 1998 as a result of a back injury sustained during the course of his operational duties.

In discussion with Mr Wigglesworth he confirmed to me various issues regarding his relationship with the management in the Fire Service. He was not willing to elaborate upon these issues in any great detail, but I understand that various formal procedures are under way. I made it very clear to Mr Wigglesworth that my role was to assess his fitness for work and address any health issues that may have arisen; in his particular case this required addressing issues of stress that may have arisen during the course of his employment with the Fire Service.

Mr Wigglesworth was in fact very keen to assure me that he did not regard himself as under any undue stress or suffering from any stress reaction at this time. Psychological assessment of Mr Wigglesworth on the afternoon of 15th September 1998 gave me no indication that he was suffering any adverse effects which could be attributed to stress in his employment or any other circumstance.

Physical examination of Mr Wigglesworth on 15th September 1998 showed no abnormalities in the physical function of his vertebral column and his history gave no indication of any other medical condition which could effect his fitness for operational duties.

As a result of my consultation with Mr Wigglesworth on 15th September 1998 I am therefore in a position to advise you that in my opinion he is physically and psychologically fit for his operational duties without restriction. I could elicit no evidence of any ongoing medical condition which might prejudice his fitness for operational duties or other duties required of him by the Fire Service.

Yours sincerely


Dr David Deacon MA MB BChir DoccMed
Occupational Health Physician

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 261 Princes Street Fire Station Open Day

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


ALLINGTON HEALTH TRUST

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

SUFFOLK FIRE SERVICE

CERTIFICATE OF FITNESS


NAME: WIGGLESWORTH. ANTHONY DAVID date of birth 07.7.57

OCCUPATION: WHOLE TIME FIREFIGHTER

The Examining Medical Health Officer is requested to complete and return this form to the County Fire officer.

In my opinion the above named person:

1. √ Fit to undertake (or continue) duties as an operational fire-fighter, in accordance with the recommendations of the committee to review the Medical Standards for the Fire Service

2. Unfit to undertake (or to continue) duties as an operational fire-fighter, in accordance with the recommendations of the committee to review the Medical standards for the Fire Service.

Additional Information

Signed Dr D Deacon (Examining Medical Officer) Date 15th September 1998

Delete as appropriate.

Where a new recruit has the minimum standard of vision this should be stated.

CA/JH/JAN95 (FORM C) FIRE

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 260 Great Yarmouth Fireman Vacancies

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

Comment on Doc 259 the hand-written
notes of Dr David Deacon


Overall pretty shite!

We would hope, but doubt it, that his medical practitioner skills are much better?

Woe betide any unfortunate soul who requires his services in a dire emergency. But then again he has been out of the frontline for a long long time.

Or as Graham Smith says from time to time when expressing contempt for those he sees as inferior firefighting personnel. “Can’t cut the mustard”

Out of interest Doc Deacon was formerly a General Practitioner at the High Street surgery in Lowestoft. Seems he wasn’t all that popular with some of his patients. Especially those who thought his views on alternative medicine (acupuncture and water therapy) were crackpot. That said he must have made some converts as he was freelancing on the side after investing in a hydro therapy bath at his Kessingland home.

Hmm not much call for hydro therapy round the Lowestoft area!

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 259 Great Yarmouth Firefighter Vacancies

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


Dr David Deacons hand-written medical record/notes made during or after alleged medical examination of
Sub officer X 15th September 1998

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

ALLINGTON
HEALTH TRUST

NAME: WIGGLESWORTH. Date of birth 07.7.57

Date
15/9/98

(2 words unintelligible) lifted a drill dummy alone (acknowledges) on should have used a safe system of work?

(4 words unintelligible)

(5 words unintelligible) for subsequent 5 days then booked sick after full physical activity (4 words unintelligible0

for a whole variety of reasons (3 words unintelligible)

(4 words unintelligible)

No further (2 words unintelligible)

[ (2 words unintelligible to other matters – not (3 words unintelligible)]

O/E (6 words unintelligible)

(2 words unintelligible)

(5 words unintelligible)

(5 words unintelligible)

Dr D Deacon

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 258 Great Yarmouth Fire Station Open Day

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

Medical at Bury St Edmunds 15th September 1998


Wiggy arrived at Bury St Edmunds Fire Station at approximately 1645 hours. The Brigade Medical Adviser (or quack might be more appropriate) Dr David Deacon and his occupational assistant were still getting themselves organised in the Officers mess at this time.

While they were engaged in this preparatory work Wiggy viewed the Dr Deacons schedule for that evening. He noticed that his name had been scribbled over the top of Firefighter Grant Whitehead whose appointment had been cancelled by Deputy Chief Fire Officer Simon Smith to squeeze Wiggy in.

Also now present was Firefighter Keefe. Wiggy probed Firefighter Keefe about the manner of his notice to attend the medical. To which he replied that he had been given 3 weeks notice dating back to 26th August 1998.

Once set up Wiggy was the first in to see Dr Deacon. And from there on it all went downhill.

In the first instance Dr Deacon enquired what Wiggy’s medical complaint, signs and sympton’s were?

In reply Wiggy was unable to help much except that he was here for a full medical and that to avoid wasting further time he asked Dr Deacon to get on to it.

Dr Deacon then said he had been personally contacted by Deputy Chief fire Officer Simon Smith to carry out a medical assessment of Wiggy, who then asked why?

Dr Deacon said Deputy Chief Fire Officer had given him specific medical instructions for the examination. In particular, Deputy Chief Fire Officer Simon Smith wanted him to assess Wiggy’s fitness for working in the Fire Service environment and a medical opinion as to whether Wiggy’s continued employment in the Fire service was in everybody’s best interests.

Wiggy told Dr Deacon that he had been told to attend for the purpose of a medical examination and asked that Dr Deacon proceed to record his principal physiological functions. Dr Deacon refused and neglected to record Wiggy’s pulse, blood pressure, lung function and every other standard analysis normal to Fire Service medical examinations
Dr Deacon the m went on to invite Wiggy to tell him about the employment tribunal complaint and its background. Wiggy asked where Dr Deacon had heard about that employment tribunal and what business it was of his. To this Dr Deacon said that the details had been given to him during an extended conversation about he had had with Deputy Chief Fire Officer Simon Smith earlier in the afternoon. Seems that Deputy Chief fire Officer Simon Smith had taken it upon himself to tell Dr Deacon that such behaviour, the employment tribunal complaint, had a bearing on Wiggy’s medical suitability to continue as a serving member of the Fire Service.

So, the remainder of the 15 minute medical examination comprised Dr Deacon being mainly engaged in a one-way conversation as Wiggy listened to him explaining his dilemma and medical conflict of interest that arose from the medical orders issued to him from his paymaster Deputy Chief fire Officer Simon Smith.

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 257 Wickhambrook Fireman Vacancies

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

Events 15th September 1998


At approximately 1500 hours Wiggy received a telephone at work. The caller was T/ADO Graham Saward.

He went on to instruct Wiggy that he was ordered to proceed to Bury St Edmunds Fire Station immediately and present himself for a medical examination at 1700 hours that was to be undertaken by the Brigades medical adviser Dr David Deacon.

Wiggy asked T/ADO Saward why?

The latter explained that the decision to subject Wiggy to a medical examination had been taken and arranged by the Deputy Chief Fire Officer Simon Smith.

Wiggy told T/ADO Saward that he felt the short notice was unacceptable. Also that he was not due for a routine medical for at least another year. Also that he was not currently registered as sick.

T/ADO Saward said he appreciated Wiggy’s concerns and agreed that it was an extraordinary development for the Deputy Chief Fire Officer to personally organise medical examination for individuals. Nevertheless, he stated that the notice to attend the medical at two hours notice was a direct service order personally issued by Deputy Chief Fire Officer Simon Smith. As such it left Wiggy with no option but to attend or risk being prosecuted for an offence of disobedience under the Fire Service (Discipline) Regulations 1985.

Under threat Wiggy agreed to attend and he set off to Bury St Edmunds almost straight away.

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 256 Wickhambrook Firefighter Vacancies

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

Mr A Wigglesworth
Lowestoft

Assistant Chief Fire Officer
Suffolk Fire Service
Brigade Headquarters
Colchester Road
Ipswich
IP4 4SS

Your Ref HR9/SD/JC/CAB

15th September 1998

Dear Mr Seager,

Thank you for your letter dated 11th September 1998 (Doc 247).

The answer to both questions is yes.

In addition, I advise you that I wish to call a number of further witnesses comprising the following:

ADO Eric Smith.
Miss Claire Debman.
Mr Derek Lay (County Council principal personnel officer).
Mr Nick Wilding (County Council Health and Safety officer).
Dr David Deacon (Brigade Medical Advisor).

Finally my representative Firefighter M Hyde has indicated that he will need an assistant to defend your prosecution and has approached Firefighter M Gilbert for this purpose.



Yours sincerely


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

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 255 Wickhambrook Fire Station Open Day

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


Evening of 14th September 1998

Wiggy got on the telephone and contacted the Officer-in-Charge of Wrentham, Southwold, Halesworth and Bungay Fire Stations to check the diary entries for previous health and safety inspections he had made with ADO Campion. Sure enough the reliable ADO Campion (“Pilsbury Dough Man”) had written such visits in the diary as “health and safety inspection”. With a little further explanation to Wrentham’s OiC, the late Sub officer Jimmy Woodgate and Sub Officer Paul Marshal from Bungay, Wiggy was able to secure the incriminating diaries for 1997. The 1997 dairy from Southwold was obtained at a later date. Unfortunately the Halesworth diary was destroyed before Wiggy could get his hands on it.

Never mind with 3 out of the 4 relevant diaries Wiggy had obtained documentary evidence, in ADO Campion’s own written handwriting, to show the latter was a complete and willing liar (LIAR!).

Sure enough a compulsive liar at the command of Assistant Chief Fire Officer Ken Seager. As they say in the Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service Command Power Syndrome sphere, “A GOOD OLD BOY!”

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 254 Bury St Edmunds Fireman Vacancies

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




Mr A Wigglesworth
Lowestoft

FBU Region 10
Steve Brinkley


14th September 1998

Dear Steve,

Further to my letter dated 10th August 1998 (see Doc 193) and our meeting at Colchester Road Fire Station on or around 14th August 1998. I am disappointed that I have not yet received any feedback from you or the FBU on the matter.

Furthermore, I believe that the non-action of the FBU, to date, is giving certain individuals within the Suffolk Fire Service a sign of approval to continue with personal abuse toward me. In particular today I have been refused access to carry out health and safety inspections at Wrentham, Southwold, Halesworth and Bungay Fire Station. The order to such refusal seems to originate from ACFO K Seager and was directly communicated to me today by ADO Alan Campion. All this despite the fact that he had no qualms about the inspections when they were arranged with him last week. In addition, and despite the fact that ADO Campion has accompanied me and accepted FBU health and safety inspection records and notifications from me he denied such events had ever taken place. As far as he was concerned I am not a legitimate FBU health and safety representative.

Strange then that I received paid leave from the brigade to attend the relevant TUC health and safety course last year. Of course this was after I had notified them of my health and safety status on my application for that leave. In addition, I have continued to carry out health and safety inspections on other Suffolk Fire Service premises, in the Lowestoft area with the passage of further documentary evidence.

All in all I have, by way of ADO Campion’s behaviour, been denied guaranteed statutory rights assigned to trade union health and safety representatives. I would be grateful if you could intervene and resolve this matter, by way of the normal FBU channels used for such employer abuses. I look forward to being able to resume my elected health and safety representative role in the near future.



Yours sincerely


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

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 253 Bury St Edmunds Firefighter Vacancies

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

SPARE

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 252 Bury St Edmunds Fire Station Open Day

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

Zedgen (revised)

SUFFOLK FIRE SERVICE

To: Sub O. Wigglesworth 055

From: T/ADO Saward
Brigade Training Centre
Cc Chief Fire Officer

Date 14- SEPTEMBER 1998

Application for leave

I refer to your memorandum dated 14th September, 1998, in which you make application for eight days leave, with effect from Tuesday, 15th September, 1998.

I must reiterate that your request for reduction in rank to that of Firefighter and subsequent transfer to operational duties has not yet been considered by the Chief Fire Officer.

To grant this leave at short notice would create a staffing problem as you are programmed to instruct on a Breathing Apparatus Refresher course at Bury St Edmund’s on 15th and 16th and to the RSPCA on 17th and 18th. Your application is, therefore, refused.

I am, however, able to grant you leave during the following two weeks, if you so wish, but this should not be seen in any way as being connected with your previous request for transfer.

If you wish to have leave during this period, please make a further application in the normal manner.


G.E. Sawood
T/Assistant Divisional Officer

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 251 Needham Market Fireman Vacancies

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

Zedgen (revised)

SUFFOLK FIRE SERVICE

To: CHIEF FIRE OFFICER
Per T/ADO Saward

From: SUBO. WIGGLESWORTH
Station: 055

Date 14- SEPTEMBER 1998

REQUEST FOR LEAVE

Sir,

I have accrued 8 days outstanding rotas. As I expect to be leaving the department almost immediately I request that I be allowed to take these on my next 8 duty days. Whilst this is at short notice I am sure you appreciate that in the circumstances this would be for the best. In addition it will also prevent these days being carried over in another department which is not responsible for their accrual.


A Wigglesworth BSc, G.I.Fire.E
SubO 854

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 250 Needham Firefighter Vacancies

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

Zedgen (revised)

SUFFOLK FIRE SERVICE

To: CHIEF FIRE OFFICER


From: SUBO. WIGGLESWORTH
Station: 055

Date 14- SEPTEMBER 1998

CHANGE OF RANK


Sir,

After due consideration and solely as a result of the hostile circumstances I have been presented with I wish to revert to the rank of Firefighter forthwith and fill one of the vacancies at Lowestoft Fire Station.

This decision has been forced upon me wholly by the intolerable harassment, bullying, abuse, intimidation and unlawful behaviour of Deputy Chief Fire Officer Simon Smith toward me in the past three months. As a result, this has had a profound effect on my health and general welfare, which the Brigade has completely failed to mitigate by a provision of a duty of care.

As a result I presently feel I do not possess the capability, nor the confidence required to perform the duties of a Junior Officer.

A Wigglesworth BSc, G.I.Fire.E
SubO 854

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 249 Needham Market Fire Station Open Day

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

Events Monday 14th September 1998.

By way of mutual consent the previous week it had been agreed by Assistant Divisional Officer Alan Campion (or “Campion the Wonder Horse” as called by Firefighter Paul Woolstenholmes or “Pilsbury Dough Man” as he was called in Great Mancheter County Fire Service) and Wiggy that the latter would carry out Health and Safety inspections on behalf of the FBU at ADO Campion’s Fire Stations. These being Wrentham Fire Station, Southwold Fire Station, Halesworth Fire Station and Bungay Fire Station. The inspections were to take place on Monday 14th September 1998 and ADO Campion had agreed to accompany and drive Wiggy round the Stations in his Staff Car.

Shortly after 0900 hours Wiggy caught up with Pilsbury in the Training officers office at the end of the first floor corridor at Lowestoft Fire Station. Present with Pilsbury was Temporary Assistant Divisional Officer Graham Saward.

Wiggy asked ADO Campion if he was ready to set off on the inspections.

In reply he said that the inspections had been cancelled on the orders of Ken Seager. Asked why, he then went on to say that Ken said Wiggy must not be allowed to carry out any Health and Safety inspections because he was not a representative body Health and Safety official.

ADO Campion was reminded that he had no problem the week before when the appointment to visit his Stations was made. In response he again said to Wiggy “Ken Seager says you are not a FBU official and must not be allowed to carry out any inspections.

ADO Campion was then reminded that he had accompanied Wiggy round his Stations for the purpose of a FBU Health and Safety inspection 6 months earlier. Pilsbury denied any such inspections had ever taken place.

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 248 Harwich Fireman Vacancies

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

Comments on Doc 247

Re: Responsibility to make arrangements for witnesses.


According to the relevant guidance document over seeing the Fire Service (Discipline) Regulations 1985 responsibility rests with the Brigade. It is argued that is a point well known by ACFO K Seager, who it is assumed is being awkward once more.

Notice of witnesses

7. If not less than 7 days before the date fixed for the hearing the presenting officer or the member informs the disciplinary body of the names and addresses of any witness to relevant facts, whom he may desire should give evidence:

a. Any such witness who is a meber of a fire brigade (including a junior fireman) should be ordered or instructed in writing to attend the hearing and should be required to appear in uniform;

b. Any such witness including employees of the fire authority should be given written notice of the time and place of the hearing and invited to attend.



Guidance on the Fire Service (Discipline) Rgulations 1985

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 247 Harwich Firefighter Vacancies

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

Suffolk County Council

Fire Service

Sub Officer Wigglesworth
C/o Training Department
Normanshurst
Your ref
Our ref KES/DISC/SIS
Ask for ACFO Seager Tel (01473) 588939
11th September 1998

Dear Sub Officer Wigglesworth

FIRE SERVICE’ (DISCIPLINE) REGULATIONS, 1985 – HEARING OF CHARGE, 12TH TO 13TH OCTOBER 1998

I refer to your letter dated the 9th September 1998 addressed to Mrs Campbell, which has been passed to me for action.

I must ask you to confirm in writing by return:

1. Do you intend to actually call all the witnesses named in your letter, or is the list merely a notification of potential witnesss?

2. If you do intend to actually call the named witnesses, are you expecting the Brigades Personnel Department to make the necessary arrangements for securing the attendance of your witnesses?

You will be aware that the date has been set for the hearing. I must therefore ask that you reply to this letter without delay.



Yours sincerely

KE Seager
ACFO Technical
Brigade Investigating Officer

The Suffolk Fire Expereience - Doc 246 Harwich Fire Station Open Day

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


Thompsons
Solicitors
CONGRESS HOUSE
GREAT RUSSELL STREET
LONDOM
WC1B 3LW
DX 35722 BLOOMSBURY
TEL 0171 637 9761
FAX 0171 637 0000
Fax 0181-546 5187

CDJ/WIGGLESWORTH/L98/60166

Mr A Wigglesworth
Lowestoft

By Post only

9 September, 1998

Dear Mr Wigglesworth,

YOUR CLAIM

Thank you for your letter and its enclosures which I have copied and which are returned to you. They clearly show that you are acting as a Health and Safety representative and have been accepted as so by the Brigade.

I appreciate your desire not to share the documents with the Brigade. However, I have a continuing duty to act not only for you but also for the Fire Brigades Union and to ensure that I do not incur costs on behalf of the union unnecessarily. The tribunal procedure requires that documents and witness statements are disclosed well before any hearing. It is inconceivable that Thompsons would ever enter documents at the start or during any hearing.

It is unknown and not possible for trade unions to recover any costs of a tribunal case and therefore early settlement if possible is in everyone’s interest. Failure to disclose good evidence, such as that provided, would not be able to be used in any hearing. Therefore, disclosure is in your interests.
I have sent copies of the documents to the County Council Solicitor and await his response. If it is unhelpful, then I will need copies of the minutes you have mentioned, copies of some documents that you have signed in your official capacity and also the names and addresses of the witnesses we will want to call to show that you are the Health and safety Represntative.


Yours sincerely


Craig Jones
For THOMPSONS

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 245 Ipswich Fireman Vacancies

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

Mr A Wigglesworth
Lowestoft

Mrs J Campbell
Human Resources Officer
Suffolk Fire Service
Brigade Headquarters
Colchester Road
Ipswich
IP4 4SS

Your Ref HR9/SD/JC/CAB

9th September 1998

Dear Mrs Campbell,

Thank you for your letter dated 7th September 1998.

I am somewhat surprised by the contents of your letter. In particular, I have referred to the highly respected guidance documentation governing the recommended procedures for the Fire Service (Discipline) Regulations 1985. I can find no power for the Brigade Investigating Officer to demand that the defence should provide the prosecution with a copy of their witness evidence.

In consequence, for the Brigade Investigating/Prosecution, officer to demand information privileged to the defence may be unlawful and Abuse of Authority. Of course these deviations would only be substantive if the information demanded is supplied. Under duress I supply the privileged defence evidence as follows:

1. Temporary/Divisional Officer Paul Hayden.

In the first instance documentation, including statements attributed and signed by the above has been incorporated into the Brigade Investigating/Prosecution, officers case file. In short, the latter has deemed T/DO Hayden’s evidence to be essential to the prosecution case. Otherwise it would not have been included in the case file. Further, this witness had direct involvement in the seminal event leading Deputy Chief Fire Officer Simon Smith’s collateral decision to impose an unlawful deduction to Sub Officer Wigglesworth’s wages. In addition, T/DO Hayden has aggravated the relevant situation by way of falsehood.

2. Leading Firefighter Stephen Bartram.

This witness was the person assigned to assist the accused by prior arrangement amongst Training instructors in the seminal event. This person’s assistance to the accused was withdraw by T/DO Hayden and is completely incongruent with the latter’s explanation and justification of subsequent events. The this person is an expert witness to disputed work practices.

3. Deputy Chief Fire Officer Simon Smith.

Reckless threatened unlawful action, ultimate reckless and abusive unlawful action toward another Fire Service member. Vital to the establishment of reasonableness.

4. Miss Sarah Davies.

Already cited as Prosecution witness.

5. Assistant Divisional Officer Paul Seager.

Has been directly involved and contributed to the investigation.

6. Sub Officer Kieron Davey.

Already cited as Prosecution witness.

7. Divisional Officer Graham Smith.

Already cited as Prosecution witness.

8. Station officer James Parsons.

Already cited as Prosecution witness.

9. Divisional Officer Robert Batchelor.

Failed to process grievance invoked by accused 4th June 1998. Witness to employee relations and statements made, 2nd July 1998, of direct relevance to the case.

10. Divisional Colin Hodge.

Required to establish factual inconsistencies in technical investigation procedures, failure to investigate other breaches of discipline and personal vested interest.

11. Assistant Divisional Officer Robert Middleton.

Principal witness to establish quality, neglect and impartiality of investigation.

12. Assistant Chief Fire Officer Kenneth Seager.

Required to establish personal vested interest and negligence in response to supplied information regarding unlawful action and blatant Abuse of Authority by Deputy Chief Fire Officer Simon Smith in respect of facts principal to the investigation. Also explanation of abusive telephone call to accused 31st July 1998 as part of investigation process.

13. Assistant Chief Fire Officer Trevor Tinley.

Made comments at Junior Officers meeting Ipswich 10th June 1998 with regard to reasoning for discipline investigation of Sub Officer Wigglesworth.

14. Chief Fire Officer Malcolm Alcock.

Personal involvement in connection with Brigade Management Team decision to recommend unlawful action. This is where ultimate responsibility rests for pursuing an unjustified and vexatious case rests. Has total discretion to exercise discipline, clearly a key witness in establishing reasonableness. Needed to confirm receipt of recorded delivery of complaint of unlawful action and possible breach of discipline by Deputy Chief Fire Officer Simon Smith.

15. Sub Officer George Moran.
16. Temporary/ Assistant Divisional Officer Graham Saward.

Witnesses to serving of discipline indictment under duress and by unreasonable means.

17. Leading Firefighter Michael Peaper.
18. Sub Officer John Tiffen.
19. Sub Officer Garry Smith.

Witnesses to comments of Assistant Chief Fire Officer Trevor Tinley June 10th 1998.

20. Sub Officer Peter Redbourn.
21. Sub Officer Henry Landis.
22. Leading Firefighter John Southgate.

Witnesses to comments of Assistant Chief Fire Officer Trevor Tinley June 10th 1998. Also expert witnesses to misleading evidence and inconsistencies regarding work procedures in respect of seminal event.

23. Sub Officer Christopher Wallis.

Senior instructor in-charge of course leading to seminal event, vital to relevant facts surrounding this issue. Also expert witness to bogus evidence in connection with fictitious work practices specified by prosecution witnesses. Also completed statement in case file.

24. Sub Officer Keith Boyce.

Training centre instructor and expert witness to procedures and fictitious evidence surrounding seminal event. Also aware of relevant variations in work practices that were not taken into account by person/persons committing initial unlawful act. Will also support evidence of falsehood by principal prosecution witness. Also completed statement in case file.

25. Assistant Divisional Officer Tony Fuller.

Expert witness, as former Brigade Training Officer, as to work practices carried out in training department to support misleading evidence in presentation of prosecution case.

26. Senior Fire control Operator Parker.

Recipient of Near Miss named in prosecution evidence.

27. Mrs Lin Homer Suffolk County Council Chief Executive.

Expert witness, as practising solicitor, to unlawful action carried out by Deputy chief Fire Officer Simon Smith.

28. Keith Stevens Suffolk County council Monitoring Officer.

County Council monitoring officer, expert witness to Deputy Chief Fire Officer Simon Smith’s unlawful behaviour.

29. Mr Aubrey Webb Suffolk County Council Harassment Advisor.

Direct involvement by appointment as harassment advisor.

30. Mr J Hawkins.

Expert witness to Health and safety reporting protocol and procedure.

31. Mr David Matthews.

Expert witness to Health and safety reporting protocol and procedure.


Yours sincerely


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

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 244 Ipswich Firefighter Vacancies

Comments Doc 244


Well the tardy explanation of the circumstances for Wiggy’s enforced recall to the workplace given by Herr Kenny Zeeger is one way of looking at it we suppose?

But the bottomline is that Wiggy was forced against his will to return to his workplace on the direct orders of Herr Zeeger.

Indeed, ordered to return to the workplace for something that was of absolute no urgency and perfectly capable of waiting until normal office hours 2 days later on Monday 3rd August 1998.

On the other hand it seems to be a case of Herr Zeeger deciding the matter was urgent and needed immediate service intervention. Therefore, a recall to Duty.

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 243 Ipswich Fire Station Open Day

Suffolk County Council

Fire Service

Sub Officer Wigglesworth
C/o Training Department
Normanshurst

Your ref
Our ref KES/DISC/SIS
Ask for ACFO Seager
Tel (01473) 588939

8th September 1998

Dear Sub Officer Wigglesworth

OVERTIME CLAIM – 31ST JULY 1998

I refer to the claim you have submitted for 3 hours overtime on the 31st 1998 described by you as: “Recall to duty on the direct orders of ACFO Seager”.

This is a misrepresentation of the circumstances of the service of the charge sheet by ADO Saward on that night. You will recall our telephone conversation where I gave you the choice of receiving the notice either at your home or at the Fire station. It was your choice, not my direct order, that resulted in your attendance at the Fire Station.

“Recall to duty” is a phrase with a specific meaning in the context of the National Joint Council Scheme of Conditions of Service ( The Grey Book). I refer you to page 2.6, paragraph 5, which explains that recall to duty is for the purposes of: “..to assist with a serious incident where it is apparent that his or her services would be of value, and in such circumstances (my italics) to receive payment in accordance with paragraph 12 of Section VI….”.

As the reason for your attendance at Normanshurst on the 31st July was other than as described above, I have issued instructions that your claim for payment for recall to duty be refused.

The circumstances of the evening of the 31st July are more properly covered by paragraph 2(b) of Section II (page 2.4). I have authorised 1 hours compensatory time off in lieu to be added to your time owing record to compensate for the service of the charge sheet outside of normal office hours.



Yours sincerely

KE Seager
ACFO Technical
Brigade Investigating Officer

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 242 Hadleigh Fireman Vacancies

CONFIDENTIAL

MANAGING SICKNESS ABSENCE


To: ADO Wilson

From: Jo Campbell
Personnel Department

Date: 7th September 1998

Re: Wigglesworth

Attached is the sickness report for the period 1st May 1998 to 31st July 1998 for all the people for whom you are responsible.

The people who have exceeded the triggers in (i) and (ii) have been highlighted and the dates indicated on the Absence Report Sheet. (Also for the trigger indicated in (i) below, where applicable, dates of absence during the 2 previous months have been included.)

But you will need to examine the data for those who may be displaying pattern (iii).

(i) 3 periods of uncertified or self certified leave in a 3 month period totalling 7 days or more;
(ii) Long-term sickness (over 10 duties/working days)
(iii) Unacceptable patterns of absence (e.g. regular Fridays).

Interview those who have exceeded the triggers. Explain the purpose of the interview; look for possible causes (may be outside of work); consider whether the problem may be short lived or longer term. Discuss whether or not the employee can reduce their level of sickness absence. Make a note of the interview on the attched Sickness Absence report Sheet and forward to the Human Resources department marked “ PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL” for their PR File. In the case of Long-term absences, when a return to work interview has already occurred, inform the employee of what information is being recorded on the Sickness Absence Report.

If an employee persistently exceeds the triggers with no improvement or satisfactory explanation, refer to the Personnel Manager.

Jo Campbell
Personnel Officer

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 241 Hadleigh Firefighter Vacancies

Suffolk County Council

Fire Service

Mr. A. D. Wigglesworth
Lowestoft
NR32 4RD

Your ref
Our ref HR9/SD/JC/CAB
Ask for Mrs J Campbell
Tel 01473 588939

7th September 1998

Dear Sub Officer Wigglesworth

FIRE SERVICES’ (DISCIPLINE) REGULATIONS, 1985-
NOTIFICATION OF HEARING

Thank you for your letter dated 4th September 1998.

I have shown it to the Brigade Investigating Officer and discussed it contents with him. He is of the opinion that your witness list is excessive and unrealistic. Further, he believes that many of your witnesses do not possess any “relevant facts” in connection with the circumstances of your case.

In consequence, the Brigade Investigating Officer insists that you should supply details of the “relevant facts” and contribution to evidence that each of the witnesses you have listed will bring your defence, at the hearing on 12th October 1998. Please advise me within seven (7) days of this letter.


Yours sincerely

J. Campbell

Personnel Officer

The suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 240 Hadleigh Fire Station Open Day

Mr A Wigglesworth
Lowestoft

Mrs J Campbell
Human Resources Officer
Suffolk Fire Service
Brigade Headquarters
Colchester Road
Ipswich
IP4 4SS

Your Ref HR9/SD/JC/CAB

4th September 1998

Dear Mrs Campbell,

Thank you for your letter dated 28th August 1998.

I advise you of the following witnesses who may be called to the prosecution hearing scheduled for 12-13 October 1998:

1. Temporary Divisional Officer Paul Hayden.
2. Leading Firefighter Stephen Bartram.
3. Deputy Chief Fire Officer Simon Smith.
4. Miss Sarah Davies.
5. Assistant Divisional Officer Paul Seager.
6. Sub Officer Kieron Davey.
7. Divisional Officer Graham Smith.
8. Station Officer James Parsons.
9. Divisional Officer Robert Batchelor.
10. Divisional Officer Colin Hodge.
11. Assistant Divisional Officer Robert Middleton.
12. Assistant Chief Fire Officer Kenneth Seager.
13. Assistant Chief Fire Officer Trevor Tinley.
14. Chief Fire Officer Malcolm Alcock.
15. Sub Officer George Moran.
16. Temporary/Assistant Divisional Officer Graham Saward.
17. Leading Firefighter Peaper.
18. Sub Officer John Tiffen.
19. Sub Officer Garry Smith.
20. Sub Officer Peter Redbourn.
21. Sub Officer Henry Landis.
22. Leading Firefighter John Southgate.
23. Sub Officer Christopher Wallis.
24. Sub Officer Keith Boyce.
25. Assistant Divisional Officer Tony Fuller.
26. Senior Fire Control Operator Parker.
27. Mrs Lin Homer.
28. Mr Keith Stevens.
29. Mr Aubrey Webb
30. Mr J B Hawkins.
31. Mr David Matthews.

I can confirm that my representative may be Temporary Leading Firefighter Michael Hyde.

Yours sincerely


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

The Suffolk Fire Experience - doc 239 Ixworth Fireman Vacancies

Spare

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 238 Iworth Firefighter Vacancies

Suffolk County Council

Treasury

SPECIAL PAYMENT

Reason for payment:-

Name Mr. A. D. Wigglesworth
Personal Number 0901801380

Date of Issue 4.9.98

Payments
Basic Pay (6th – 12th May 98 £212.16
Instructors Allowance £11.80

Total Gross Pay £223.96

Deductions (Representative figures only)

Pension £24.63
Tax £45.77

Total Deductions £70.40

NET PAYMENT £153.56

A cheque drawn in accordance with the manual calculation shown above has been sent to your Bank/Building society account. These figures will be included in your next computer produced wages/salary pay advice

If you have any queries please contact GARY UPSON

Telephone No 01473 584843




04 SEP 1998


Dear Customer

ADVICE OF CREDIT

I write to let you know that your account number ******** has today been credited with the following:

Amount 153 . 56 GBP

Ordering Bank:
By Order Of
SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL
COUNTY FUND ACCOUNT

Senders Reference
SUBB558602205001

Yours faithfully

Elizabeth Croft
Payment Processing Manager

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 237 Ixworth Fire Station Open Day

First Direct

04 SEP 1998

Dear Customer

ADVICE OF CREDIT

I write to let you know that your account number ******** has today been credited with the following:

Amount 153 . 56 GBP

Ordering Bank:
By Order Of
SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL
COUNTY FUND ACCOUNT

Senders Reference
SUBB558602205001

Yours faithfully

Elizabeth Croft
Payment Processing Manager

The suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 236 Thetford Fireman Vacancies

Other Developments 4th September 1998

It is useful to note that Docs 234, 232 and 231 all written on or around 4th September 1998 took at least a couple of days to wing their way to Wiggy through the post.

This being the case it became apparent to Wiggy that Deputy Chief Fire Officer Simon Smith’s unlawful deduction (£153.56 net) had been covertly slipped into his bank account on 4th September. Indeed with all the silence a sly snake like personality such as Deputy Chief Fire Officer Simon Smiths must dictate. Yes all very quiet when the “shit hits the fan” and the perfected ego and absolute authority of Deputy Chief Fire Officer Smith is dented.

So, slipped in without any notice. Or lets hope he doesn’t notice it?

So, Wiggy was left unawares of the deposit and only found out later when Suffolk County Council Treasury posted on an advice note of a special payment. To add to this Wiggy also received written confirmation of this unique payment from his bemused bank.

Never mind “The Silence of the Lambs” this was more like the “Silence of the Unlawful and Complete Phuckwit Deputy Chief Fire Officer Simon Smith”

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 235 Thetford Firefighter Vacancies

Comment on Doc 234


Ah we see! So, Suffolk Farce Service claim that Wiggy is not a health and safety rep.

We suppose that explains the plea in Doc 233 i.e.

7.2 The Respondent will resist the Applicants contention that he has suffered detriment under Section 44 Employment Rights act 1996 on the following grounds.

None of the grounds set out in section 44 (1) (a) to (e) apply in the Applicant’s case…………………………………………….

Because he isn’t a health and safety rep we suppose?

Well lets look at the evidence.

1. Remember 18th August 1998 Doc 215?

DO Hodge

What is your official role and title, in relation to the FBU, and when did you take up that role?

Sub O Wigglesworth

Health and Safety representative for the local branch.

Note: Sub O Wigglesworth shows DO Hodge an envelope addressed to himself from FBU head office.

2. Remember 7th August 1998 Doc 184?

Extracts from Divisional Officer Colin Hodge’s notebook
7th August 1998

Page # 157
Time and
Reference

1050 hours I obtained the Reg 7 letters from ACFO Seager – He asked me to ring him from Lowestoft as soon as I…………….

Page # 158
Time and
Reference

……………… arrived so that he could notify the FBU H/Office by FAX that two union officials were under investigation.

AND THERES MORE

3. Remember 2nd June 1998 Doc 53?

FBU

FBU WORKPLACE INSPECTION
HEALTH AND SAFETY REPORT FORM

Date of Inspection: 2nd June 1998

Reference: Fire Safety Offices

Safety Representative: A Wigglesworth

Workplace Location: Lowestoft

Employers Representative: ADO Eric Smith

Notification to the employer (or his representative) of conditions or working practices considered to be unsafe or unhealthy and of arrangements for welfare at work considered to be unsatisfactory.

Matters Observed

1. Ventilation of Fire Safety Offices is extremely poor and causes office space to be heated to high and uncomfortable temperature levels in summer months. This situation has been reported on previous occasions.
2. Water quality in washroom is poor and has a strange taste.

This record does not imply that the conditions are safe and healthy or that the arrangements for welfare at work are satisfactory in other ways.

Signature of the employer (or his representative)

Eric Smith 2nd June 1998

Signature (s) of Safety Representative(s)

A Wigglesworth 2nd June 1998

EVEN BETTER DO REMEMBER ADO HAYDENS REFERENCE FOR WIGGY?

4. 3rd June 1997 Doc 22?

………………………He has taken on the responsibility for representing the Fire Brigades Union in matters of Health and safety in my area, and he has a sound understanding of regulations and procedures. In my dealings with him in this capacity, I have found his sensible attitudes and attention to detail most helpful and he has been entirely supportive of joint safety initiatives. ADO Paul Hayden (now Chief Fire Officer Hayden Hereford & Worcester “Good Old Boy”)

Lets also not forget that Suffolk Farce Service also approved Wiggy time off to attend the Trade Union stage one Training for health and safety representatives i.e Doc 28. Also on top of that the notification to Suffolk Farce Service informing them that Wiggy is the elected health and safety representative (Doc 9).

Tell you wot this fire outfit is a bit of a Rogue UK Fire Brigade isn’t it?

Not only do they have an unlawful Deputy Chief Fire Officer in Simon Smith along with an unlawful and incompetent Human Resources Manager in Miss Sarah Davies (now Mrs Meelan at Suffolk College). But they are also good at cultivating lies and all manner of falsehoods to cover their tracks.

Quite unfortunate that they are not too good in remembering some of the vital and necessary facts to the convincing life support of lies.


So just who is it that constructed the falsehood about Wiggy not being a health and safety representative?

1. From subsequent documentation it will be, in fact is already apparent, that the then ADO Hayden was one of the confederates (patience please its coming soon, very soon- further incriminating documentation).
2. Documentation also suggests that DO Colin Hodge and Assistant Chief Fire Officer Ken Seager were also in possession of information and knowledge of this kind. It is also apparent that the latter was the main link and instructor of information to the County Solicitor Alan Gillespie.

The suffolk fire Experience - Doc 234 Thetford Fire Station Open Day

Thompsons
Solicitors
CONGRESS HOUSE
GREAT RUSSELL STREET
LONDOM
WC1B 3LW
DX 35722 BLOOMSBURY
TEL 0171 637 9761
FAX 0171 637 0000
Fax 0181-546 5187

CDJ/WIGGLESWORTH/L98/60166

Mr A Wigglesworth
Lowestoft

By Post only

4 September, 1998

Dear Mr Wigglesworth,

YOUR CLAIM

I have received a letter from the Fire Authority about your case.

Contrary to what you have told me, they say that you are not a health and safety representative and have produced a list of the representatives. Can you please tell me what the position is. If you maintain that you are a health and safety representative, do you have any official paperwork to establish that position and if so, please send me copies urgently.


Yours sincerely


Craig Jones
For THOMPSONS

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 233 Newmarket Fireman Vacancies

Analysis Doc 232

Isn’t it ironic that Suffolk County Council use 5 paragraphs to paint the Applicant as a dubious character only to then admit their action was wrong. Indeed as was conveyed to Sarah Davies (now Meelan – Human Resources Director Suffolk College) on 3rd June 1998. Also to Divisional officer Colin Hodge 2nd July 1998 (see Doc 111 & Doc 128). Mores the pity they would only admit their malicious action when presented with a legal challenge.

As for why the Respondents decided to concede the unlawful deduction is explained by the fact that not only were they blatantly wrong in law, but the spin they used to explain their action could not be substantiated. In particular, the claim that the Applicant’s sick leave, some days after the accident on 1st May, was caused by that accident was false. The Applicant made no such statement when he registered sick with the on duty watch on 6th May 1998.

Overall, on any reading of Doc 231 it is clear there is a large amount of ill feeling toward the Applicant. But of course, in an organisation regulated by the tides of Fire Service Command Power Syndrome Theory (CPST) perhaps no more should be expected.

Maybe that’s why there’s no apology written into Doc 231?

And finally the bottom-line perspective. Deputy Chief Fire Officer Simon Smith and his assistant Miss Sarah Davies (now Mrs Meelan- Suffolk College) were by their actions effecting unlawful sanctions on an employee who they viewed as an inferior human being.

So in terms of the Fire Service (Discipline) Regulations 1985 and the application of the Ken Seager’s zero tolerance attitude Deputy Chief Fire Officer Simon Smith may have committed one or more offences?

Perhaps Abuse of Authority? Or as Deputy Chief Fire Officer Simon Smith’s malicious incompetence has resulted in the Brigades dirty washing being put into the public domain, maybe the offenc of Bringing the Brigade into Disrepute?

Or maybe conduct prejudicial to the Discipline of the Brigade?


So I suppose over to the Brigades Prosecution Officer Assistant Chief Fire Officer Kenneth Edward Seager to show courage and leadership! That said lets no hold our breath.

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 232 Newmarket Firefighter Vacancies

Section 7 Attachment to Main Body of IT3


7.1. The Applicant is employed as a training Instructor, in the rank of Sub Officer, at the Respondent’s Training School in Lowestoft. He has been employed by this Brigade since 1993, having first joined the Fire Service in West Yorkshire in 1978. The terms and conditions of the Applicant’s employment are, for the most part, set out in the Scheme of Conditions of Service agreed by the NJC for Local Authorities’ Fire Brigades.

7.2 On 1 May 1998, the Applicant reported that he had injured his back while setting up a training exercise. In particular, he had raised two drill dummies from ground level onto the top of a Water Carrier and strained his back. Carrying out such a lift unaided is contrary to the safe systems of work established by the Suffolk Fire Service. As is usual practice, the accident was investigated. The officer investigating noted that the Applicant had not followed a safe system of work and said that he “could not be bothered” to seek or wait for assistance. As the Instructor on a Training course, the Applicant holds a position of authority over trainees and provides a role model to others. He therefore has the usual responsibility for his own health and safety and that of others, but he should also be seen to adhere to safe practices.

7.3 On Wednesday, 6 May 1998, the Applicant booked sick stating that he had a bad back due to the accident on 1 may. He was absent on and from 6 May up to and including Tuesday 12 May 1998 (seven days).

7.4 Section IV para 7 (2) of the National conditions of service for Fire Brigades (1998 edition) states that:

“if a member……………………..has, in the opinion of the fire authority acting on medical advice, caused or substantially aggravated any illness or injury by neglect or default,……..he/she shall be entitled only to such paid sick leave as the fire authority may determine”.

The applicant has made clear unequivocal statements regarding the cause of his injury on 1 May and the link between that injury and his subsequent absence. In view of this the Respondent invoked the paragraph quoted above by writing to the Applicant on 29 May 1998 to inform him that he would receive half pay, over and above SSP. This arrangement represented a loss to the Applicant of approximately £212 from his gross earnings at the end of June.

7.5 The Respondent has been advised that the requirement to obtain medical advice in the National Conditions is a condition precedent to deducting sick pay. As the Respondent has not received medical advice although it is plain that the Applicant was responsible for the injury the Respondent now accepts that it cannot deduct sick pay for this technical reason. The Respondent will, therefore, reimburse the sick pay deducted.

7.6 The Applicant was advised that he could challenge the deduction from pay by means of the Respondent’s grievance procedure. He initially chose not to do this, but rather filed a “near miss” procedure, claiming that the Deputy County Fire Officer had harassed and bullied him by sending the letter of 29 May 1998, and that this was a health and safety issue. This action by the applicant is the subject of disciplinary action under the Fire Service (Discipline) Regulations 1985 and the charge is “Insubordination”. A hearing before the County Fire Officer will take place in due course.

7.7 The Respondent will resist the Applicants contention that he has suffered detriment under Section 44 Employment Rights act 1996 on the following grounds.

None of the grounds set out in section 44 (1) (a) to (e) apply in the Applicant’s case.

He has not at present been subjected to a detriment.

The report filed under the “near miss” procedure was not in respect of health and safety.

Mw/gillespie/ind.tribs/noticeofap/wiggleswor

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 231 Newmarket Fire Sttaion Open Day

Suffolk County Council IT3 Notice of Appearance in response to IT1 (Doc 169) lodged at Bury St Edmund’s Employment Tribunal 7th August 1998

ETS
Employment
Tribunal
Service

THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE BY RESPONDENT

1. Full Name and address of the Respondent:
SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL
SUFFOLK FIRE SERVICE
BRIGADE HEADQUARTERS
COLCHESTER ROAD
IPSWICH
SUFFOLK
IP4 4SS

2. If you require documents and notices to be sent to a representative or any other address in the United Kingdom please give details:
K W STEVENS
COUNTY SECRETARY AND SOLICITOR
SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL
COUNTY HALL
IPSWICH
IP4 2JS

REF 20123/ag

Tel 01473 584113

3. Do you intend to resist the application?

Yes

4. Was the applicant dismissed?

No

5. Are the dates of employment given by the applicant correct?

Began on 6.9.93.

Ended on N/A.

6. Are the details given by the applicant about wages/salary, take home pay or other bonuses correct.

Basic Wages /Salary £22,125 per annum.
Other Bonuses/Benefits £1,230.96 per annum.

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 230 Newquay Firefighter

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

Analysis Statement of Station Officer Jim Doc 229


“Due to the flexible nature of the work schedule within the brigade training department I have previously allowed informal arrangements for booking leave.”

What he really means is that is what custom and practice was.

“Essentially ………. instructors managed their own leave and only had to inform me verbally that they intended to take leave. If I was unavailable they then a note left on my desk was acceptable.”

So more or less exactly what Wiggy did when taking his leave 7th August 1998. Managed his own leave and left a note on Station Officer Jims desk.

“In return for this informal arrangement instructors have always accommodated my requests (often at short notice) to work rota days and to change duties.”

And as far as Wiggy was concerned about 20 – 30 changes of rota at short notice to cover for others in the previous 12 months.

“On the 8th July 1998 ADO Hayden issued an order instructing that all leave requests be submitted to me in writing. I issued copies of that order to all instructors including those attending courses at the Fire Service College. In particular, I have been asked if a copy was issued to Sub O Wigglesworth. I can confirm that I left a copy of the order on his desk.”


Ah so you can’t confirm Wiggy was given a copy of ADO Hayden’s proclamation 8th July 1998. And the desk would be the same one used by all an sundry who visited the Training Department to sit at, work from, use and plonk their bags, brief cases and everything else on etc.

“He was on annual leave at the time. My annual leave ran from 1.898 to 16.8.98. When I returned I found a leave request dated 7.8.98 from Sub O Wigglesworth requesting leave on the 12.8.98. This request had been left on my desk in my absence.”

So the leave request was left as per normal. But Station Officer Jim has forgot to say that he and Wiggy were only on duty together for one day between 8th July and 12th August 1998

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 229 Newquay Fireman

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

Statement of: Station Officer James Parsons

Age : 37

Occupation: Fire Officer

Address: Meadow View Narrow way Wenhaston Halesworth

Telephone No. 01502 478547

This statement (consisting of 2 pages each signed by me) is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.

Dated 1.9.98

Signature: J Parsons

This statement was taken by ………………………..at…………………………..
………………………………………..on………………………………………….I read it over to ………………………………….. and he/she read and signed it in my presence.



Signature

Due to the flexible nature of the work schedule within the brigade training department I have previously allowed informal arrangements for booking leave. Essentially this meant that instructors managed their own leave and only had to inform me verbally that they intended to take leave. If I was unavailable they then a note left on my desk was acceptable. This system worked well, with instructors almost always fitting in leave when not scheduled to run courses. On the few occasions that requested leave clashed with courses mutually agreed alternative arrangements were made to allow……
Signature J Parsons

Page 2

.. instructors their leave. On no occasion have I ever had cause to refuse leave. In return for this informal arrangement instructors have always accommodated my requests (often at short notice) to work rota days and to change duties. On the 8th July 1998 ADO Hayden issued an order instructing that all leave requests be submitted to me in writing. I issued copies of that order to all instructors including those attending courses at the Fire Service College. In particular, I have been asked if a copy was issued to Sub O Wigglesworth. I can confirm that I left a copy of the order on his desk. He was on annual leave at the time. My annual leave ran from 1.898 to 16.8.98. When I returned I found a leave request dated 7.8.98 from Sub O Wigglesworth requesting leave on the 12.8.98. This request had been left on my desk in my absence.
Signature J Parsons 743

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 228 Newquay Fire Station

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

Discussion Doc 227

So, decisions have to be made as to who should be called as witnesses?

Best place to start is to look at the documentation supplied to support the prosecution officer, Kenneth Edward Seager’s case. i.e. all those interviewed and all those who have supplied statements or reports to help the prosecution.

After all its only reasonable that the accused should be allowed to cross-examine all those contributing evidence.

Note. It is in the best interests of Fire Service Command Power Practitioners, who may wish to undertake flimsy/dodgey or controversial prosecutions to keep their bundle of evidence as light as possible, and with the least possible witness contributions as possible. Only the really stupid, driven by a religious adherence to the doctrine “never mind the quality feel the width” pack their bundle of documentary evidence with material that is irrelevant.

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 227 Nayland Fireman Vacancies

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


Suffolk County Council

Fire Service

Mr. A. D. Wigglesworth
Lowestoft
NR32 4RD
Your ref
Our ref HR9/SD/JC/CAB
Ask for Mrs J Campbell Tel 01473 588939
28th August 1998

Dear Sub Officer Wigglesworth

FIRE SERVICES’ (DISCIPLINE) REGULATIONS, 1985-
NOTIFICATION OF HEARING

Further to the charge sheet issued to you on 6th August, 1998, the Brigade Investigating Office has informed me that he is satisfied there is a case to answer and that it should be subject to a full hearing, to be heard by the County Fire Officer. Accordingly, arrangements have been made for the hearing to take place on 12th and 13th October, 1998, commencing at 1000 hours. The hearing will take place in the Conference Room at Brigade Headquarters. In accordance with the above regulations, you are therefore, ordered to attend the above hearing at the time specified. The hearing may be completed on Monday, 12th, however it may be necessary to continue on 13th, therefore you must be available on both days.

The dress code for the hearing will be undress uniform (No.1 rig).

Please advise me within seven (7) days of this letter of the names and addresses of any witnesses you will be calling and the name of the person who will be assisting with your case. A prepaid envelope is enclosed for your convenience.

I understand that documentary evidence concerning this case has already been given to you. If this is not so, please let me know as soon as possible.


Yours sincerely

J. Campbell
Human Resources Officer

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 226 Nayland Firefighter Vacancies

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


Emergent Proposition (Doc 67) Reinforced by the events recorded in Doc 205, 224 and 225?

Doc 67 as stated below

Emergent Proposition Fire Service Command Power syndrome Theory (CPST)*

Fire Service CPST practitioner’s who believe they or their colleagues are threatened, undermined or subject to resistance by those of lower status are motivated toward collateral retaliation. Retaliation measures may be overt or covert.



*The proposition is generated from the development of this case study and the behaviour reported in Doc 65. Collaborating evidence is available pre Doc 32 “The Suffolk Hyde Affair” See: April 2005 Archives
http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/

Therefore the proposition comes from hindsight and repetitive experience. Full knowledge of “what happens next”? So the proposition is not derived by some grand scientific theorising. It arises from real events


So are the events and actions recorded in Doc 67, 224 and 225 compatible with the emergent proposition? Is it sustained by reality?

One way of thinking about it, and we hasten probably not the only possible thought, is that:

On the one hand a Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service employee engages on long-term falsification of records and theft. And then on the other a Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service employee is alleged to have completed the wrong form and is Insubordinate.

Which is the worst offence in the eyes of Kenneth Seager the Suffolk Fire and Rescue prosecution officer?

Well strange as it may seem to the authoritarian personality it is the latter of the above examples.

So what is the crucial difference eliciting an extreme difference in the response?

Well there are numerous differences between the individuals that could explain the differential. Whatever, one to start the consideration of is that one has personally attacked, insulted or resisted the Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service Command Power clique and one has not.

It is argued that the events reported in Doc 205, 224 and 225 reinforce the emergent proposition above.

Just wait till you see the reference for SubO Davey supplied by Kenny Seager in 2001. Sorry you will have to be patient and wait for another 3-400 documents to be uploaded. Must keep the chronology correct.

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 225 Nayland Fire Station Open Day

Re Doc 224?


Hmmm. What’s Doc 224 all about then?

Ah yes, remember Doc 205?

Well its all to do with that missive from Kenny Seager sent to Kieron Davey, all to do with an earlier discipline investigation carried out into Kieron Davey’s overtime records.

Top and bottom being that the our “good old boy” Kieron Davey had been found out for falsifying his leave and overtime records. What a naughty Suffolk Firefighter he was, wasn’t he?

Silly-billy. Seems he was entering false claims for time owing and cooking up fictitious meetings, work, visits to Fire stations etc with regard to his trade union health and safety representative duties. Nice little earner I suppose, if one can get away with it. By all accounts it had been going on for months and months. Indeed, he had already gained plenty of time off from work to which he was not entitled to.

Anyways by the time they had caught up with him they could only identify 100 hours of false claims. Hence the action to remove his 100 hours time owing. That’s not fair is it?

In effect then a case of theft. Hmm what was 100 hours worth in money? At the time and according to “good old boy” Kierons hourly rate we would estimate somewhere in the region of £1000.

Overall then probably as serious a crime it is possible to commit against ones employers. Nevertheless, Kenny Seager seems willing to bend over backwards to help Kieron as stated in his letter (Doc 205). Strange isn’t it that “good old boy” Ken Seager is excessively lenient in respect of an employee falsifying records and ripping the organisation off to the tune of £1000 but entirely different in his response to Wiggy’s minor deviation with regard to the near miss. i.e. Doc 58 and the later outcome i.e a formal charge for Insubordination Doc 161.

Why the extreme variation in response to these situations.

Station Officer Jim said, ‘ I think he (Kieron Davey) is in the freemasons same as Rob Woodard, lets face it there both wrong uns who have fucked up and come up smelling of roses. Something is not quite right about all this.’

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 224 GMC Tumble Dry Firefighter

SUFFOLK FIRE SERVICE


To: A.C.F.O. Seager
BHQ

From: Stn. O. Parsons
055 BTC

Date: 24th August 998



SUBJECT: Time Owing – Sub. Officer Kieron Davey

I am in receipt of your E-Mail instructing me to delete 100 hours from Sub Officer Davey’s time owing records.

Accordingly I have amended the records and removed the 85 hours 30 minutes balance.

I have also issued Sub Officer Davey with a memo informing him of my action.

J Parsons
Station Officer
Brigade Training Centre

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 223 Sudbury Fireman Vacancies

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


21st August 1998

X obtains a 2 week sick certificate from his General Practitioner due to symptoms of anxiety.

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 222 Sudbury Firefighter Vacancies

Spare

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 221 Sudbury Fire Station Open Day

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

Interview with Sub O. Wigglesworth Continued
Tuesday 18th August 1998
General Analysis Transcript Omission


It has already been stated that the transcript produced by Divisional Officer Graham Smith was seriously incomplete. It is fortunate then that Wiggy and Mick Hyde had some prepared written questions and answers and that both were also taking their own notes.

One such omission by phuckwit Smith is at the end of Doc 213 in this series.

Below is what was actually said by Wiggy as opposed to what was written by DO Graham Smith at the foot of page 3.

Sub O Wigglesworth

With regard to the leave taken on the 5th and 6th August. That taken on the 5th was in part taken to fulfil my role as an Health and safety representative. I think normal procedures were taken into account in taking that leave. In the wider context if there is a dispute to me taking health and safety leave to fulfil the relevant functions then reference to section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is quite specific. Reducing this to its simplest terms or the minima. Nobody should suffer detriment from carrying out the functions of a health and safety representative. Therefore to impose sanctions upon anyone taking such leave would be a contravention of section 44. As the 5th was for legitimate health and safety purposes that explains the leave fully.

In respect of the 6th this was taken upon reasonable grounds due to two concerns. Firstly I was subject to a malicious telephone call at my home on August 21st from Assistant Chief Fire Officer Seager. As such it was wholly inappropriate that I should come face to face with him. Secondly the leave was required to enable me to attend an important ante – natal clinic with my partner who has been experiencing complications since June. As such it was reasonable and urgent, more so after a home visit from the midwife on Wednesday morning. The latter expressed further concern at my partners condition ( 37 weeks0 and suggested labour might be induced.

Seems Divisional Officer Graham Smith forgot or chose to alter this statement. Maybe it didn’t suit him to record it in full? More likely he was just plain incapable.

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 220 Woodbridge Fireman Vacancies

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

Interview with Sub O. Wigglesworth Continued
Tuesday 18th August 1998
General Analysis Transcript Omission


It has already been stated that the transcript produced by Divisional Officer Graham Smith was seriously incomplete. It is fortunate then that Wiggy and Mick Hyde had some prepared written questions and answers and that both were also taking their own notes.

One such omission by phuckwit Smith is at the end of Doc 210 in this series.

Below is what was actually said by Mr Hyde about DO Smith’s involvement and conflict of interest.

Mr Hyde

With regard to yourself (DO Hodge) and DO Smith, it is we think wholly inappropriate that you should be assisting in any way this investigation. You are already involved in another case under due process in relation to
Sub Officer Wigglesworth.

As such you are inextricably personally involved and subject to prior prejudice whereby such an impression as to impartiality is vague in the very least.

For you to remain a part of this investigation would we believe be quite wrong and against Home Office guidelines which prohibits such involvement.

As such we ask you to consider your position with the Investigating officer in direct relation to this point.

Seems Divisional Officer Graham Smith forgot or chose to alter this statement. Maybe it didn’t suit him to record it in full? More likely he was just plain incapable.

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 219 Woodbridge Firefighter Vacancies

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

Interview with Sub O. Wigglesworth Continued
Tuesday 18th August 1998
General Analysis


If we are to believe the transcript it would seem that Sub O Wiggy speaks in pigeon English as opposed to DO Hodges superior spoke word.

However the explanation for this is due to Divisional Officer Graham Smith’s incompetence in recording the interview. DO Hodge was reading a pre prepared script thus the phuckwit Smith did not have to write his questions as they were already on paper in front of him.

As phuckwit Smith was pretty hopeless in his recording it is estimated probably half of what Wiggy said was omitted. Or he filled in the gaps as he felt useful to the task in hand.

For instance the question on page 7 was seriously mis-recorded i.e.

Sub O Wigglesworth

Can you confirm that the meeting was cancelled?

DO Hodge

No. I cannot confirm that.

Sub O Wigglesworth


I can, I have seen it on the screen, the officepower e.mail system.

What Wiggy actually said was “Can you confirm that the meeting was NOT cancelled?

Wiggy’s reference to having seen it on the screen was with reference to the minutes taken at the meeting.

Also phuckwit Smith’s incompetence in transcribing also explains the extremely low word count taken during the 73 minute long interview

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 218 Woodbridge Fire Station Open Day

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

Interview with Sub O. Wigglesworth Continued
Tuesday 18th August 1998
General Analysis



Page 8 At the foot of the page

Note: A copy of DO Smith’s transcribed notes and a copy DO Smith’s copy of the questions used by me was made and handed to Sub O Wigglesworth immediately following the interview.


Complete bollocks. Fact is that despite being asked for notes and a transcript DO Hodge and Smith refused. Perhaps due to the fact that the so called transcript was in utter chaos and more like a Dogs dinner!

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 217 Holbrook Fireman Vacancies

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

Interview with Sub O. Wigglesworth Continued
Tuesday 18th August 1998



Page 5 Continued from Doc 215

Sub O Wigglesworth

To add further to that point. The regs, it makes great use of the expression “reasonable time off” so one day in 12 moths would, I assume, be felt to be very reasonable. To perform one’s health and safety functions. I assume that you knew that was the first day I have taken in 12 months from the local investigation?

DO Hodge

Did you, in your view, comply with the requirements of paragraph 14.1 (I) “The safety represntative will be required to give reasonable notice of requirements for time off where practicable, and in normal circumstances OBTAIN THE PRIOR APPROVAL of the County Fire officer.”

Sub O Wigglesworth

The circumstances were that I was informed at short notice of the meeting. I couldn’t have responded any quicker in my actions.

Page 6

DO Hodge

Did you obtain prior approval to attend that meeting from anyone in authority in Suffolk fire Service?

Sub O Wigglesworth

It would have been impossible to get prior approval because there was nobody in the office available, particularly that week when there was no management for vast chunks of the week on the station. I refer to my immediate line managers, and even when available were generally unapproachable!

DO Hodge

Would you like to be more specific on that last comment?

Sub O Wigglesworth

Not really because approachable is a very good description.

DO Hodge

Did you attempt in any way to contact T/DO Hayden to obtain approval?


Sub O Wigglesworth

It was mentioned on the 4th August before tea break prior to a meeting Mr. Hayden had with Sub O Marris and before he was hurriedly requested to HQ by the CFO secretary to an unscheduled meeting. With regrad to the 5th I was in at my workplace at 0830 to load the poxy band boxes and left the workplace after 1700.

DO Hodge

“It was mentioned?” Did you mention it to T/DO Hayden.

Sub O Wigglesworth

Yes.

DO Hodge

I am now going to move on to Thursday 6th August 1998.

You submitted a written leave request to S/O Parsons, which was dated the 5th August 1998 (a Wednesday), for leave on the 6th august ( a Thursday). When did you submit that application and where did you put the leave request?

Note: DO Hodge shows Sub O Wigglesworth the leave request memorandum.

Sub O Wigglesworth

That was submitted the day before, the 5th August 1998, with also the one for the 12th.

DO Hodge

Can you expand on that?

Sub O Wigglesworth

Separate memos, both put in together.

DO Hodge

Where did you leave that leave request.

Sub O Wigglesworth

On S/O Parsons desk for normal attention.

DO Hodge

At what time?

Sub O Wigglesworth

Late afternoon.

Page 7

DO Hodge

Did you get the request approved?


Sub O Wigglesworth

Well. Approved? As far as I am concerned I went through procedures according to the circumstances that required the leave to be taken at short notice. No other officer from the deaprtment available to take the request.

DO Hodge

You were requested by S/O Parsons to attend a meeting at BHQ on Thursday 6th August. I am aware that S/O Parsons made this request to you in writing in a memorandum dated 14th July, 1998.

Note: DO Hodge shows memo dated 14th July 1998 to Sub O Wigglesworth.

DO Hodge

Were you aware of the memorandum.

Sub O Wigglesworth

Yes.

DO Hodge

I also understand you took this memo to S/O Parsons when you received it and discussed it with him. Is this correct.

Sub O Wigglesworth

Yes.

DO Hodge

Why did you choose to disobey this order, because that is what it was, and not attend that meeting in Ipswich?


Sub O Wigglesworth

I refer you back to my original satement at the beginning of the interview.

DO Hodge

Did you get approval from any one in authority not to attend that meeting in Ipswich?

Sub O Wigglesworth

No.

DO Hodge

Did you make any attempt to get approval from anyone not to attend that meeting in Ipswich?

Sub O Wigglesworth

In my analysis, my sort of attendance I judged was not very valid. I don’t think my attendance at a meeting that I had no input into or perceived worthiness by myself would make one iota of difference. Especially in consideration of the circumstances outlined in my opening statement.

Can you confirm that the meeting was cancelled?

DO Hodge

No. I cannot confirm that.

Sub O Wigglesworth


I can, I have seen it on the screen, the officepower e.mail system.

Page 8

DO Hodge

Do you still not think it would have been correct to obtain prior approval not to have attended this meeting?

Sub O Wigglesworth

I think it would be better if we had an officer on duty in the department full time.

DO Hodge

DO Hayden looked on S/O Parsons desk on Thursday 6th August in the morning, for something else. He did not see your letter on the desk.

Sub O Wigglesworth

He is a liar!! Because I was in here at 0900 that morning to use the fax machine.

DO Hodge

I have no further questions to ask. Do you wish to make a further statement?

Sub O Wigglesworth

No.)….. 23 minutes 897 words = 39 per min)

Interview terminated 12. 13 hours on the 18th August 1998.

Note: A copy of DO Smith’s transcribed notes and a copy DO smith’s copy of the questions used by me was made and handed to Sub O Wigglesworth immediately following the interview.

I CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND ACCURATE RECORD OF AN INTERVIEW OF SUB O WIGGLESWORTH AT 11.00 HOURS ON TUESDAY 18TH AUGUST 1998.
C F Hodge Signed CF Hodge Date 17th September 1998

GD Smith Signed GD Smith Date 17/9/98

AD Wigglesworth Signed……………………Date……………………………….

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 216 Holbrook Firefighter Vacancies

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

Interview with Sub O. Wigglesworth Continued
Tuesday 18th August 1998
Analysis of Question Doc 215



Page 5

DO Hodge

Are you aware of the procedural requirements specified in HSO6, in terms of safety representatives requesting time off with pay to perform their functions?

Sub O Wigglesworth

Yes


Of course the procedure in HSO6 is one thing but as Doc 136 shows the reality is quite different i.e. below. The reality being that of informal leave arrngements being normal custom and practice in the Suffolk fire Service.


Zedgen (revised)

SUFFOLK FIRE SERVICE

To: C.F.O.
Suffolk Fire Service
cc A.D.O. Tng

From: SubO. Davey
Station 055

Date 15th July 1998

Sir,

May I respectfully request the following dates to undertake my functions as a safety representative under the Safety reps and safety committee regulations 1977 and the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

This is in accordance with HS 06 (June 1994) and County Council arrangements.

Yours sir

K.P. Davey

Handwritten additions through the chain of command.

ACO (Ops)
Please deal. I don’t think that he should normally submit this type of request to PO level – isn’t it properly dealt with by his line manager?
SASmith DCO

ADO Hayden,
Please check availability of instructors on these dates. You can decide on the information at hand to grant (or not) these and future dates. Trevor Tinley 15/07/98

Granted
P. Hayden 17 Jul 1998

The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 215 Holbrook Fire Station Open Day

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

Interview with Sub O. Wigglesworth Continued
Tuesday 18th August 1998



Page 4 Continued from Doc 213

DO Hodge

What is your official role and title, in relation to the FBU, and when did you take up that role?

Sub O Wigglesworth

Health and Safety representative for the local branch.

Note: Sub O Wigglesworth shows DO Hodge an envelope addressed to himself from FBU head office.

DO Hodge

I have in front of me the copies of the Regulation 7 letter, dated the 7th August, 1998 which I served on you on the 7th August in DO Hayden’s office. After reading it you refused my request and subsequent order to sign the third copy to acknowledge receipt of that notification, and you then returned the letters to me refusing to accept them. Do you wish to take away the regulation 7 letter now, which despite your refusal to accept it on the 7th August, was in my view and that of the Brigade, deemed to have been served on that date?

Sub O Wigglesworth

Can I just express a point of law as regarding the serving of that notice and for all future contact, any correspondence, or any note taking or whatever you want to specify, I will only permit in the presence of a fellow FBU representative. Mr. Hodge is well aware of the right for people to be represented and therefore I would like to offer DO Hodge the opportunity to apologise to me.

DO Hodge

Your comment is noted. Do you wish to take the Regulation & letter now?

Sub O Wigglesworth

Once a summons is served whether signed or not, an investigation can proceed. Yes, I will take the letter.

DO Hodge

I would reiterate I have a number of questions to ask and I would appreciate it if you respond accordingly to those bearing in mind the caution.

Can you please confirm that you have read the memorandum written by ADO Hayden addressed to all instructors and dated the 8th July, 1998 which is headed MOPNTHLY RETURNS AND LEAVE REQUESTS?

Note: DO Hodge shows a copy of the memorandum to Sub O Wigglesworth.

Sub O Wigglesworth

No.

DO Hodge

Is that a No I have not seen it.

Sub O Wigglesworth

No, I have not seen it. Bearing in mind I was off most of july that may be relevant.

DO Hodge

What duties did you perform on Wednesday 5th August, 1998?

Page 5

Sub O Wigglesworth

I attended a union committee in my role as a health and safety representative.

DO Hodge

The attendance record for August, shows you as “H?S m” for Wednesday 5th August. Did you fill in this entry in?

Sub O Wigglesworth

No.

DO Hodge

Who did?)…….. 28 minutes since last time mark words 980 = 35 per minute ]

Note: Sub O Wigglesworth requested a tea break at 11.50 hours, which was refused by DO Hodge.

Sub O Wigglesworth

(…….[ The actual record was filled in by Sub O Davey with my approval because I was stood beside him.

DO Hodge

You submitted a request direct to the County Fire Officer on 4th August, 1998 “to undertake your functions as a safety representative under the Safety Reps and safety Committee Regulations 1997 and the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974?”

Note: DO Hodge shows memo to Sub O wigglesworth.

Sub O Wigglesworth

Yes

DO Hodge

Why did you submit this request to the CFO?

Sub O Wigglesworth

As far as I am aware, that is the normal procedure.

DO Hodge

Was your request approved?

Sub O Wigglesworth

I assume when it gets there it will be

DO Hodge

Are you aware of the procedural requirements specified in HSO6, in terms of safety representatives requesting time off with pay to perform their functions?

Sub O Wigglesworth

Yes