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!
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!
posted by Bert Blythburgh at 1:06 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home