Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 399 Harrow Firefighter
Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales then check out “The Suffolk Hyde Affair” athttp://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/
Explanation Doc 397
In respect of the report by K Lynch I ask you to supply me with the name of the person who has provided you with this document.
For the purpose of minimising costs I enclose a further copy of this letter which I ask you to sign in acknowledgement of receipt and return to me.
So, what’s behind doc 14 you might ask, or then again maybe not?
By the way if anything arises that you wish to question pleas feel free to get in touch.
Par 1
Letter to SubO X 22nd December 1998
ACFO Kenneth Seager wrote to X (remember Y is X’s accused friend) on 22nd December 1998. Guess when it fell through the post-box of X? Christmas Eve, 24th December 1998. Is it not said, the traits of harassing superiors may include sending victims messages, innuendo etc at weekends or before the start of a holiday break. I think the explanation is that it’s supposed to put victims under stress and raise anxiety.
The crux of ACFO Seager’s letter (to be eventually loaded on X’s site) was that he had taken it upon himself to enter 2 further documents into evidence against X.
Wonder why?
Is it anything to do with X & Y asking their own questions of ACFO Kenneth Seager?
But why wonder?
Well the thing is ACFO Kenneth Seager issued the relevant charge sheet on or around 31st July 1998. Does Logic not dictate that he surely determined he had sufficient evidence to prosecution X at that time? Maybe it does, maybe it does not? Confusing init?
So what were the documents ACFO Kenneth Seager had decided to introduce?
1. The report by Keith Lynch into the harassment allegations made by you(X) against the deputy Chief Fire Officer dated 26th October 1998.
2. The decision of the Chairman of the Employment Tribunal on a pre- earing review held at Norwich on the 11th November 1998.
Report by Keith Lynch ( former Bingley Harrier, may also have been a admin bod for West Yorks Police) (where is he now – don’t know – might still be in charge of Suffolk social services) what’s this then?
Ah yes. Well it seems that in response to the fact that DCFO S A Smith undertook to make an unlawful deduction of X’s wages the latter made an official complaint of harassment against the DCFO.
Keith Lynch concluded the unlawful act did not constitute harassment of a fellow employee (of course the full report will form part of X’s site). So there you go the Suffolk County harassment policy has a standing precedent.
Also worth noting that just as most other organisations impose confidentiality clauses to harassment complaints and investigations so too does Suffolk.
Well if its all confidential user friendly etc how come ACFO Kenneth Seager has got a copy of it? Not only that what’s he doing using in a discipline prosecution? All good questions.
A worthy digression from Y is justified at this point to consider what Mrs Lin Homer conveyed to a legal representative of X re his harassment complaint 12th August 1998.
‘I have today been contacted by Ms Lin Homer of Suffolk County Council with regard to your complainant of harassment. Ms Homer has telephoned me to assure me that while she respects your right to choose to leave this matter in the hands of myself and the industrial tribunal, if you choose to deal with the complaint of harassment through her, then you will receive no detrimental treatment’.
Hence, the query by Y in doc 14, as to who gave ACFO Kenneth Seager the confidential report.
The Employment tribunal decision referred to ACFO Kenneth Seagers letter 22nd December 1998. Rest assured the wording is the singular decision.
In actual fact there were two decisions.
1. A decision confirmed that the wage deduction carried out on X by
DCFO S A Smith was conceded as being unlawful by Suffolk County.
This is the deduction that led to X being charged with Insubordination.
2. The second decision was that X’s other complaint was unlikely to be successful.
As ACFO Seager specified the singular it was assumed by X & Y that he would only introduce the second decision documentation.
The reply from ACFO K Seager is a few documents away. Hopefully we will still be on air by the time we get to it?
Explanation Doc 397
In respect of the report by K Lynch I ask you to supply me with the name of the person who has provided you with this document.
For the purpose of minimising costs I enclose a further copy of this letter which I ask you to sign in acknowledgement of receipt and return to me.
So, what’s behind doc 14 you might ask, or then again maybe not?
By the way if anything arises that you wish to question pleas feel free to get in touch.
Par 1
Letter to SubO X 22nd December 1998
ACFO Kenneth Seager wrote to X (remember Y is X’s accused friend) on 22nd December 1998. Guess when it fell through the post-box of X? Christmas Eve, 24th December 1998. Is it not said, the traits of harassing superiors may include sending victims messages, innuendo etc at weekends or before the start of a holiday break. I think the explanation is that it’s supposed to put victims under stress and raise anxiety.
The crux of ACFO Seager’s letter (to be eventually loaded on X’s site) was that he had taken it upon himself to enter 2 further documents into evidence against X.
Wonder why?
Is it anything to do with X & Y asking their own questions of ACFO Kenneth Seager?
But why wonder?
Well the thing is ACFO Kenneth Seager issued the relevant charge sheet on or around 31st July 1998. Does Logic not dictate that he surely determined he had sufficient evidence to prosecution X at that time? Maybe it does, maybe it does not? Confusing init?
So what were the documents ACFO Kenneth Seager had decided to introduce?
1. The report by Keith Lynch into the harassment allegations made by you(X) against the deputy Chief Fire Officer dated 26th October 1998.
2. The decision of the Chairman of the Employment Tribunal on a pre- earing review held at Norwich on the 11th November 1998.
Report by Keith Lynch ( former Bingley Harrier, may also have been a admin bod for West Yorks Police) (where is he now – don’t know – might still be in charge of Suffolk social services) what’s this then?
Ah yes. Well it seems that in response to the fact that DCFO S A Smith undertook to make an unlawful deduction of X’s wages the latter made an official complaint of harassment against the DCFO.
Keith Lynch concluded the unlawful act did not constitute harassment of a fellow employee (of course the full report will form part of X’s site). So there you go the Suffolk County harassment policy has a standing precedent.
Also worth noting that just as most other organisations impose confidentiality clauses to harassment complaints and investigations so too does Suffolk.
Well if its all confidential user friendly etc how come ACFO Kenneth Seager has got a copy of it? Not only that what’s he doing using in a discipline prosecution? All good questions.
A worthy digression from Y is justified at this point to consider what Mrs Lin Homer conveyed to a legal representative of X re his harassment complaint 12th August 1998.
‘I have today been contacted by Ms Lin Homer of Suffolk County Council with regard to your complainant of harassment. Ms Homer has telephoned me to assure me that while she respects your right to choose to leave this matter in the hands of myself and the industrial tribunal, if you choose to deal with the complaint of harassment through her, then you will receive no detrimental treatment’.
Hence, the query by Y in doc 14, as to who gave ACFO Kenneth Seager the confidential report.
The Employment tribunal decision referred to ACFO Kenneth Seagers letter 22nd December 1998. Rest assured the wording is the singular decision.
In actual fact there were two decisions.
1. A decision confirmed that the wage deduction carried out on X by
DCFO S A Smith was conceded as being unlawful by Suffolk County.
This is the deduction that led to X being charged with Insubordination.
2. The second decision was that X’s other complaint was unlikely to be successful.
As ACFO Seager specified the singular it was assumed by X & Y that he would only introduce the second decision documentation.
The reply from ACFO K Seager is a few documents away. Hopefully we will still be on air by the time we get to it?
posted by Bert Blythburgh at 7:39 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home