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.
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.
posted by Bert Blythburgh at 1:08 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home