Hello!

Hello magazine has been under fire. There is absolutely nothing wrong with frivolity. Infact, I have discovered that those who believe in frivolity lead a happier life.

Sky News had a report that was quite interesting.

All these aspects of my own behaviour are true

1. I read Hello, Now and OK
2. I have read Hello under my legal papers at the hearing against the GMC.
3. I have read "Now" in boring medical lectures

So, all in all I think I have Hello to thank for developing my interest and encyclopedic knowledge of gossip! The magazine also helped me cope through 1998 onwards. Infact, when I am fed up of the world, I go and read Hello! It has been given an unfair telling off lately. I think taking my brain off for about 20 minutes is great. I have also used its pictures to effect memory retraining and also engaged patients who are profoundly depressed to start reading magazines with glossy pictures and short writings. It works like a charm!

I therefore have only nice things to say about Hello! Its a great read. I would call it an essential whistleblower accessory.

North Staffordshire Health Watch Ignores Patient Deaths on Ward 87

Time is a wonderful thing because we can always look back to see what makes sense in life. A fair while ago I was asked to give a lecture for a disability organisation. Carl and Debbie Henshall plus Ian Syme were there. At the time, what was interesting about the trio is that they had their own agenda. They were not concerned about the problems on Ward 87. They were concerned in furthering their own agenda.

It appeared to me that they wanted me to speak against Professor Southall. I was met with a barrage of how terrible Southall was but the problem with Carl and Debbie Henshall is that they were never open about their ideas. Everything was about " speculation". Neither gave a damn about my concerns on Ward 87 or the patients that died. Infact, neither were very helpful at all. If they trully cared about the welfare of patients as opposed to only their own agenda, they would have assisted. That is what reasonable people do. Infact, thanks to them no one in Stoke on Trent is aware of their relatives on Ward 87. Thats not a problem for me but may well be a problem for the relatives.

Ian Syme and I have had a number of conversations centering on attempting to raise concerns about Ward 87. Again, with Ian the subject always had to deviate to his own agendas. Ian has a lot of agendas and is a great supporter of the Henshalls. There is nothing wrong in that until you discover that his good friend is Dave Blackhurst Sentinel newspapers Stoke on Trent.

That is also the reason why Dave Blackshurst is not independent at all. His allegiance lies with this patient group and he propagates the stories of this group only. Dave Blackhurst believes in "keeping it in the family". Of course, I doubt it would matter to Dave if his sources lied to him or made up their stories. I am sure he would still print them. I suspect one needs fiction to sell a low class newspaper like the Sentinel that doesn't list well online and one that no one reads nationally or internationally.

We also ask ourselves about the credibility of North Staffordshire Health Watch. A credibility that is steadily dwindling with the exposure of one of its coordinators during the cross examination at the GMC. Debbie Henshall can be seen to be evasive, unclear, sarcastic and less than convincing. She has always had an agenda against Professor David Southall. We have known that for years. Her agenda fitted with that of Penny Mellor.

The aim of the game was to block any story that would overshadow that of their view on David Southall. If this was not the case then each of them would not have purposely sidelined the issue of Ward 87. The fact remains that they did. This isn't about me at all but it is about a patient group in Stoke on Trent purposely concealing evidence relevant to their community. I did my job, but the North Staffordshire Health Watch didn't do theirs. It is ironic that they themselves attended the Bristol Inquiry Seminars [ see below].

Despite doing this, they made every attempt to conceal these issues from the public. They cannot deny that at all because in the end they were all aware of the problems on Ward 87, they neither campaigned or supported any of the patients or relatives there. I would not call this group one that is interested in the welfare of patients at all. There is no doubt they will deflect this issue to my attitude - the fact remains though that patient deaths, patient neglect etc on a grand scale was ignored by them. This makes them just as bad as the authorities they criticise. The 2001 Creamer Report places North Staffordshire HealthWatch in a quandary really because they ignored it for a decade despite being informed of it no less than 5 times. Lots of things can be said about me, but they collectively have no defence for concealing the findings of the Creamer Report. Ian Syme knows he cannot deny the existence of Ward 87 and its legitimate findings. If we must draw inferences by evidence, there are more reports supporting the neglect on Ward 87 than there is on Debbie Henshall's half baked theories. Yet, Ian Syme has spend nearly a decade supporting those who are less than transparent.

The other interesting issue is this, following their contact with me, Penny Mellor made contact as well. Her contact with the Henshalls is cast in stone no matter how much Debbie Henshall attempts to wriggle out of it. I have never found Debbie and Carl Henshall good or friendly people. I have found them to be opportunists. I wasn't useful to them so they lost contact with me. It was a convenient issue. In the land of opportunism, I believe there are more decent people in the world who deserve a fair hearing at the GMC.

Debbie and Carl can be spotted here on the Bristol Inquiry Seminars . Ian Syme, Carl Henshall, Deborah Henshall, Co-ordinators, North Staffs. Health Watch - PHA2 0001 (0088, 0089, 0090, 0091, 0092, 0093, 0094, 0095, 0096, 0097).

Professor Rod Griffiths Would Call A Crash Team To Ask for A Drip Set

It is always amazing that a simple drip set becomes a massive political issue. Who would ever know that a simple lack of a drip set [ which could have been corrected by giving me the dripset] would end up being a controversial issue. I suspect it is a controversial issue because it is unheard of for a first world country like the UK to have no basic equipment on their wards. Actually, in India and Africa there would have been a drip set somewhere! The question of its unavailability of became such an issue that millions of sheets of paper, money and time on various solicitors part was spent lying about it. From 1998, there must have been more than 100 or more NHS staff, workers, Department of Health lawyers who spent their time running away from the issue of a simple question " Why did the ward not have basic equipment". In the last 10 years, no one has been able to respond to this simple and basic question.

The most important selection of slimy behaviour came from Professor Rod Griffiths and his two solicitors at the Department of Health during his submissions to my complaint at the GMC. The GMC wriggles quite badly when any of us mention Professor Griffiths. That's because Professor Griffiths was Director of Public Health in the Midlands with a office near Boss Hogg formally known as Professor Temple. He was also on the GMC's payroll. A few years ago, I complained about a few things. The case examiners screened this out without reading the data. I then appealed to the President under Rule 12. At that time, the Department of Health lawyers attempted their usual squealing tactics. Letters flew back and forth to the General Medical Council. I beat them all and won the Presidential Review. The complaint when down the procedures again. The case examiners admitted to Griffiths' failings but felt there was no issue Serious Professional Misconduct. It then went back to Rule 12 Review again and was thrown out. Following further evidence, it is back at Rule 12. If anyone has ever watched children play in playground, this is what it is like playing with authorities like the GMC, DOH and the Trust. They behave like little bullies when they all collectively say " No, you are not having the full report Rita". The GMC are though aware that this issue isn't disappearing fast and they will have to deal with it one day. During the legal threats to judicially review the incident, the GMC instigated a complaint against me and had me fired. This is exactly the same behaviour that was done in 2004. All complaints were subsequently dropped by the GMC.

During Professor Griffith's submissions he lied and suggested to the GMC that I should have called the crash team if I didn't have a drip set. I made a FOI request. Unknown to North Staffordshire NHS Trust, they both fell head first. North Staffordshire NHS Trust admitted in writing "Currently the majority of Trust doctors don’t routinely wear white coats and are not required to carry any therapeutic items with them. There has always been a checklist for the resuscitation trolley and that would always include fluids and administration sets"

No one on the cardiac arrest team carries a "drip set in their pockets

Professor Griffiths had no where to go following this statement as he had been caught lying to the General Medical Council. He pointed out that the CBE meant that he was "Honest". The good thing about having a CBE is that the GMC forgives them especially if the liar is an employer of theirs. We also know he was dishonest in his dealings at the Griffiths Inquiry related to David Southall's work. Griffiths though is a hot potato head. On one hand the GMC wants to appease the public by their new found movie showcase called the Henshall Hearing. They also want to string Southall up from the highest spire. On the other hand, they would like to close the lid on Professor Griffith's compulsive lying habits. Professor Griffiths though know that all his solicitors and he lied about many issues related to Ward 87. He also knows that he cannot sue me in libel because what I have said is true. I am surprised the Queen gives him a CBE. As Director of Public Health he paid no attention to patient deaths and effectively was responsible for the deaths on Ward 87. He may slime out of it with all his big fat contacts in the General Medical Council and his case examiner friends. He may also slime out of his responsibilities as the Department of Health civil servants.

Professor Rod Griffiths though cannot ever get away from the truth. In fact, it is the truth that stands right there haunting him despite his cloud of lies that has obscured the issues of Ward 87. This is what we call the " puffer fish" effect. It is of course the truth that matters in the court of public opinion. So a simple drip set became quite complex for Professor Griffiths. He wriggled out of all procedures because he has a CBE and I don't. In any event, he knows how many people died and the lengths he went to, to cover up for his friend David Fillingham, the Ex Chief Executive of North Staffordshire NHS Trust. The GMC amusingly went through great lengths to keep the unredacted copy of the 2001 Report from me. We will discuss that particular game in the future. I affectionately term it " Pass the Parcel". When you are playing this sort of game with bullies, it becomes a little boring. Nevertheless, if they want to play, the least we can do in the public court of opinion is to observe their antics and amuse ourselves. Dishonest people play games. In this case, these are advanced games designed to tire me out, to make me give up. Thats all well and good but in the end I believe the public has to see the lack of accountability in the UK's system.

I received a kind email from a former nurse. I certainly appreciated her words.

Dear Dr Pal

First may I apologise to you for not responding sooner.

As a former night sister responsible for the night supervision of a busy District General Hospital as well as having to work in A and E and later in my career as a senior nurse in Occupational Health I feel that this may qualify me to speak with some authority on the following matter that I find quite bizarre.

This concerns the occasion when you found that there was not a giving set on a ward and had to borrow one .

PROFESSOR GRIFFITHS.

I would like to reinforce that it is not appropriate to call the crash team out unless it is for a cardiac or respiratory arrest. I was particularly concerned at what I can only describe as the utterly unfair and if I may say so the vicious comments and allegations brought against you by a person who should know better. I am referring to Professor Griffiths who I understand is or was a Director of Public Health.As such he is obviously not immediately involved with acute hospital critical care. This raises the question as to why he is allowed to voice his opinion on the matter. I am struggling to understand what gives Professor Griffiths the authority to pass judgment on yourself a doctor out in the field so to speak having to deal with an acute situation with little or no back up from what appears to me to be a lax management structure.
After all depending on Professor Griffiths age or when he qualified it must be yonks since he resuscitated a patient! So how can he speak about the purpose of the crash team and when they should be called out?

Dr Pal I feel that you need some one to reinforce what you as a competent and ethical doctor already know but what no one is bothering to listen to.

Personally I find this totally unacceptable and unpalatable. However this has happened in so many cases where you have a competent person under the direction of an incompetent one or an incompetent or inefficient management. However even so I am extremely disgusted at Professor Griffiths and wonder just how much he has been put up to berating you for his own private reasons!I would be highly incensed at being so unfairly and unjustly criticised. Despite what Professor Griffiths said or wrote or any member of the GMC said whether it be a screener or a clerical worker that in the opinion of those that know what they are talking about there can be no doubt that you did act correctly and professionally and therefore you can hold your head up high . The GMC had no right to put you through all this because you were trying to protect patients. This Organisation should have supported you throughout but instead they let you down! It is preposterous, insulting and a defamation of your good character for the GMC to dare to suggest that because you decided to defend yourself with determination and vigour against a hospital as well as the GMC that you must by very definition be suffering from a mental illness.

What did these people expect you to do? Lie down quietly whilst they walked all over you!
I don't think so. The days when men ruled OK in medicine and bullied the few female drs as well as try to bully nursing staff are well and truly over-at least that is the theory anyway!
Why should you break down in tears and grovel for mercy from these bullies! Why should you prostitute your dignity and self respect to boost the ego of these chauvinistic pigs?I know that I would not so why should I expect anyone else to?

No you did the appropriate thing. You faced your attackers with courage and with dignity head on. You had to face them head on you did not have a choice as they would have crushed you physically and spiritually otherwise. If the hospital or GMC did not like the way you defended yourself then they shouldn't have started it! You are entitled to defend yourself against these unfounded and vindictive allegations just like the next person and that is all that you have done. You defended yourself in the correct and proper manner.

I feel that this is more than can be said for what is in my opinion the highly unethical and unprofessional manner in which Professor Griffiths has berated and attempted to demoralise you in his futile attempts to cover up the inadequacies of the management you were unfortunate enough to work for. In my opinion if Professor Griffiths had anything about him he should be advising management that they were completely in the wrong and offering his profound apologies to you for defaming you. Furthermore he should be telling Management what everybody else is saying that is that Management should ensure that the wards are sufficiently equipped and not expect medical staff to run errands from ward to ward trying to locate items of equipment!

There can be no excuse whatsoever for the ward not having an Intravenous giving set!
No excuse whatsoever!

To call the crash team as Professor Griffiths is so strongly recommending that you should have done albeit he is not even in the critical care situation himself is a complete and utter nonsense .In my opinion what he has said is simply a red herring and a distraction to take the limelight off the inadequacies of the weak and inefficient management of the hospital and to try to make you as you were at that time a junior doctor the scapegoat for these lax managers and to get them off the hook for their incompetencies and inefficiencies!

Given my experience of hospitals and their politics etc the irony is that that had you taken Professor Griffiths advice had be been on hand to provide it at the time then not only would you have had disciplinary action taken against you but you would have been the laughing stock of the hospital.

You would have been unable to command any respect wherever you went. You would have lost the trust and confidence of the Public/Patients in the medical profession as a whole and also in the hospital.

As you know news spreads fast around a hospital!


Professor Griffiths as an experienced doctor knows full well the consequences of him siding with management against a doctor. He knows full well that in running you down as expected of him by management that he is saving the reputation of a few managers who can move on if necessary to cause harm elsewhere and that he ruins the happiness and career of a good doctor. It is because of these known consquences that I personally find his conduct despicable and I wonder why he is still allowed to practice as a doctor after failing to support a doctor who was facing a hellish situation.

Just to reiterate for the benefit of anyone you may care to show this e mail to as you have my full permission to do so.

Anybody who has worked in hospital as a dr or nurse knows full well that the Crash team is ONLY called out in case of CARDIAC and/OR RESPIRATORY ARREST.

As neither of these conditions existed then it would have been highly inappropriate to call them out.

One does not recklessly and irresponsibly call upon the crash team as they may be required elsewhere in the hospital.

It is like calling out the Fire Engine unnecessarily whilst someone is trapped in a house/building elsewhere and tying up all available fire engines!

In fact the Management may be liable for the charge of Potential or Corporate Manslaughter for not having adequate supplies/numbers of equipment on the ward in a situation where a crash team is called out irresponsibly and yied up whislst a collapsed patient requires advanced resuscitation techniques!

It is easy for Professor Griffith to be wise after the event and to pompously declare that you should have notified the 'crash' team who would have had an intravenous giving set.

As I stated previously the point of the matter is that had you notified the crash team in order to obtain a giving set that you would have been hauled over the coals and would also have been the laughing stock of the hospital. The reason for this being as you because even if the crash team did carry a giving set it was still totally inappropriate to call them out because as you have stated over and over again yet no one appears to be listening to you the crash team is there in case of cardiac and/or respiratory arrest. Re the 'complaint' re the link and the so called breach of confidentiality.

It beggars belief that the General Medical Council can squander time and money on hounding and harassing you and depriving you of your livelihood and depriving patients of the attentions of a good doctor whilst letting drs who set out to deliberately harm patients off the hook. The hospital managers who fired you on such ridiculous and flimsy grounds leave a lot to be desired as well. No guts, no backbone, no courage to stand up.

JH

The DS Walk and the Ward 87 Talk

A Simple Life - Minus the General Medical Council.
Hit it Ella

I watched the BBC report on Southall yesterday. Midlands Today has exceeded itself in biased reporting and failed again to report the admission by the GMC panel. The GMC panel admitted that the rights of the three doctors had been violated. If we all watch this video, it wrongly cites Ward 87 as historically being involved in CNEP trials.

There is a camera cut to Ward 87 and its the only publicity the dead patients of Ward 87 are going to get. It is a snippet of Ward 87 label! Midlands Today may wish to review the fact that the ward was shut down in 2005 due to the high level of patient deaths over many years. Of course, there isn't much point to asking that question given the media's blanket silence on this subject.

Since 2005, it has been the Department of Paediatrics and its offices. Therefore technically Ward 87 didn't had no involvement with CNEP on the dates specified as it was a general acute and dermatology ward. This means it had nothing to do with paediatrics. The biased one sided reporting is expected really. I cannot ever expect the BBC to actually spot the real scandal in Stoke on Trent nor do I expect them to ask the question regarding the deaths of patients on the ward.

The report made no mention of CNEP in the beleaguered Griffiths inquiry nor did it mention the Nottingham Study that effectively vindicated the CNEP study itself. Anyway, these are just minor little evidential details missed out by the blind media.

I think the only highlights of the video was the charming and lovely Henshall child who obviously has more sense and charisma than her parents. The second amazing highlight of the day for me was of course David Southall walking to the GMC. David used to be known as the Harrison Ford of the paediatric profession when I worked in North Staffordshire NHS Trust. David is oblivious to this fact but some men just cannot help being devilishly sexy. [ apologies to his wonderful wife]. As I always say, when all is going wrong at the GMC and the GMC are wasting time and doctor's money, the only thing to do really is to watch the talent walking in and out of the GMC and play Ella! In the end, in this crazy world those are the only two things that make sense. The GMC have the wrong doctor but they know that because the GMC gets it wrong more times than they get it right. I think the image of David pandered around by the media is completely wrong. David is actually a softly spoken, kind and considerate man. That was his reputation in 1998 and still is now.

Anyway, the clip has been passed to all my girlfriends for splicing to the " DS Dark Suited Walk". We believe that section of filming was a masterpiece on the BBC's front. It was well worth watching the video just to spot the DS Walk. It is just a shame that the rest of the reporting was unbalanced rubbish.

Conflict of Interest Declared - I think my Ella Fitzgerald CD Collection matters more than the General Medical Council. Ella sings better than the GMC's Fitness to Practise.

Catch Me If You Can

GMC - Sweeping Up Whistleblowers

What else can we say about the General Medical Council. Well, they were spotted on these servers fishing around it as usual. The GMC likes fishing. Its their main hobby. Thats nothing new but you would think they had better things to do than wonder around such an unimportant website that talks about whistleblowing.

We know about their close collusion with North Staffordshire NHS Trust. The GMC though are in a quandary because they dislike this website. They dislike it because it shows that the GMC never did perform their function in the "public interest". In any case, all the material on this blog is true. They all know it is. Moreover, they also know there is nothing they can do about it and that is the problem. Well, a problem for them anyway. The important thing to remember about the GMC is that they are a unimportant little organisation that is unable to deal with basic problems. Much like authorities in the UK, they fail patients and doctors miserably. The other thing about the GMC is this, there is no accountability for the shoddy service offered by them.

Life with the General Medical Council has been less than rosey for me. We exist in a bad divorce but we are agreed on one issue - they dislike me and I dislike them. That is refreshingly honest for the GMC. My only gripe with the GMC is this - in all the years they have attempted to catch me, faced me in litigation, not once have they hired a Colin Firth lookalike as their legal representative. I am of the view that this is grossly inconsiderate of them! :).

Anyone can forgive dark, evil people if they are cosmetically good looking because at least there is something to look at in court. You would think that all the money they get from those hardworking little juniors would be enough for them to be a little more considerate about my needs as a whistleblower ie dashing barristers. Everyone is aware that my two vices in the world are chocolate and observational studies of dashing barristers. Views are important after all as a mere distraction technique. You would think there would be some sort of perk out this GMC membership. The next problem is that they are such serious people. The problem with serious people is that its more fun mocking them. It is called equality - they mock me and I mock them. The difference is I do it publicly and they do it covertly. They would say " covert behaviour" is in the interests of " transparency".

Thanks to http://www.generalmedicalcouncil.com for remembering the 4 year anniversary of my last meeting with the GMC. In answer to their emails, yes it is true I went into battle with a motto that was a Tom and Jerry Cartoon. It is also true that the chocolate consumed during that hearing was phenomenal which is possibly why I am fat but then I was aiming to be much like Queen Latifa before the Honey Diet came into fashion. We now have to view some amusing and laughable GMC quotes. We all have to remember that for years the GMC has been leaking false, prejudicial information about me to potential employers. They have now been caught twice at this escapade. They also have "Alarms" set up on my file where they pass each email to Paul Philip before responding.


Professor Catto GMC today October 2005

It is no-one’s interest to allow the procedures to be misused or misapplied. Nor can it be in the interests of patients if the regulator is viewed as oppressive by the profession

Graeme Catto (August 2006)

"I also believe passionately in fairness, both to patients and to doctors. At a minimum, processes and procedures should be fair, objective, transparent and free from unfair discrimination. Decisions should be made on the basis of clear, transparent criteria, with all relevant factors taken into account and irrelevant factors excluded. We should investigate legitimate concerns fully and thoroughly; and act swiftly to protect the public interest when this is necessary. We should equally swiftly conclude complaints against doctors when their fitness to practise is not in doubt; and we should be sure of our facts if a doctor’s livelihood is at stake"

----- Original Message -----

From: Rita Pal

To: finlayscott@gmc-uk.org ; GCatto@gmc-uk.org ; pphilip@gmc-uk.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 10:29 PM
Subject: Ward 87

Mr Scott,

http://www.ward87.blogspot.com is my personal blog on the whistleblowing case the GMC specularly failed in. Over the last few weeks, the GMC mailhost has been visiting this blog and I am less than impressed with this sort of conduct from yourselves. I am entitled to write a personal blog without being scrutinised by the GMC for every word I write. I consider it oppressive to my freedom to write what I wish to.

The GMC has already had me fired, violated my rights and now continues its unhealthy obsessional behaviour.

I would be grateful if the GMC would kindly refrain from visiting my blog. The GMC visits are cluttering up and putting wear and tear on my servers. I am sure they have better things to do like catch the next Harold Shipman. In the meantime, I intend to write about all the antics the GMC has been up to so it remains as a public record for all to view. If the GMC is unhappy with that, it should not have conducted itself in the way it has.

Regards

Dr Rita Pal

Evidence of GMC visits

This is the IP address and details

GMC visit -mailhost.gmc-uk.org (80.169.194.133)

Date etc 13 May 11:42:09 MSIE 6.0 Windows XP

Sympatheia, Pascho

Fly Whistleblowers to the Moon

Sympathy is an interesting trait in people. For some reason, the trials and tribulations of whistleblowers engages either profound hatred or sympathy in people. The problem with sympathy is that while it is alright in small does, in the long term it begins to get suffocating. I recall a consultant psychiatrist sometime ago who found out about my whistleblowing and assumed I wanted to analyse or talk about it or that I wanted pity. This I believe is the worst of human nature. If we wanted "pity", we wouldn't have chosen the path of whistleblowing would we? The reason we whistleblow is because we have a strength of character and believe in something. Whistleblowers are often pretty tough people. Tougher than many people assume. I am certainly not one to sit around wasting time crying and moaning at others.

Of course they all mean well but when it comes to constructive practical advice, there is never very much because in the end people are rather impotent when they are faced with dealing whistleblowers. Even people who talk about whistleblowers like Steve Bolsin will say " Awwww look at him, he had to go to Australia". Well, he would not have had to go to Australia if people had been helpful enough to give him a job or practical assistance as opposed to providing him with large amounts of "Pity". Bolsin has a large brain, he works faster than the average bear and as a side effect he happens to be immensely sexy but that is probably due to fact that he is quite charismatic and practical. He was a big loss to the UK but the UK never did anything to bring him back to the UK.

Sympathy often annoys me because in the time I have been a whistleblower, not one person has ever told me that they would assist to effect changes in the system, to ensure that there would be accountability or that there would be changes in the medical culture in the way they all treat whistleblowers with contempt or as the " untouchable". I have been offered large amounts of sympathy, pity and counselling but we need some action because in the end large numbers of patient deaths is not a laughing matter. In addition, we don't need to waste time procrastinating. If we did, we might as well be a government minister or a NHS Manager.

In summary, I am not the sort of person who wants to spend time talking about issues over coffee unless someone wishes to use it as a constructive method of improving the system. That's why we are whistleblowers - ie we effect change and we don't sit around contemplating or debating the world. I think that is the case with all whistleblowers although society will find its way of undermining their work, side lining them and pretending they don't matter. The other issue to remember is that whistleblowers are 3D people - there is often more to them than simply the whistleblowing incident. Anyway, when I have people offering me sympathy in sickly amounts, I walk away and play Frank Sinatra. That's what I did yesterday when I received a email from the World Health Organisation expressing their sympathy for my suffering. I found it profoundly amazing that no one expressed some sympathy of the large number of patient deaths on Ward 87, not even the World Health Organisation who completely missed the point. Perhaps WHO means the rest of the world but the UK. Do we assume that the UK is a first world country when its health service exists in the third world. That won't matter to the average person as its not their family who end up in the NHS.

The good thing about Frank Sinatra is that you know that doing it " your way" is probably the right thing to do. Fly Me to the Moon is always a great song and one of my favourites. In the days I didn't have an IPOD, it was my favourite tape in North Staffordshire NHS Trust while I was oncall. Good feet tapping music while you are writing up your medical notes. The other thing about Frank Sinatra is that his music makes you believe in tomorrow and the future which we all hope will be different and better.

Enemy of the State

On bright sunny day in April 2000, I got a phonecall from Amit. Amit was a journalist for the Telegraph UK as well as a leading newspaper in India. I thought he deserved a separate posting because he was the most human of all journalists I have met. For some reason Amit was fascinated but told me that the Telegraph would not print what he wanted to write. The editor of the Telegraph apparently had some of the evidence on the lack of patient care but could not understand the medical side of it so discarded it. Anyway, Amit was undeterred and decided to write the story he wanted to. He came to our house for lunch with his handheld camera! He was accompanied by Suman Bhucar who was famous in her own right. Amit liked to talk, he was also very pleasant and fun. It was nice to speak to a journalist who was human for once and not judgmental. He also joked about me being the Enemy of the State which amused me no end.

The newspaper in India came up with a huge one page spread [ the largest piece I have ever seen on me]. The title was " The Whistleblower - This 28 year old doctor of Bengali Origin could be mad, or she could be one of the bravest women in Britain". That sentence is of course interesting because Amit told me verbally that the rumour in the midst of the media circulated by the GMC was the first part of this sentence. Of course, no one can prove this but if the GMC or anyone else wants to know how I suspected that the GMC was up to no good, I am fairly astute at interpreting information from journalists. I knew what the GMC was up to but could not prove it in 2000 but did prove it by 2003/4 and during the court case against them. The documents established what I had been warned about through 7 different sources.

Nevertheless, the article he had written amused me somewhat. It was also interesting to see how he viewed things. I shall therefore enclose some extracts

" Considering Rita is at the centre of a huge medical controversy in Britain, she looks remarkably relaxed and happy in the bosom of her supportive and typically Bengali family".

[At this point the GMC were writing memos of the possibility of a mental illness following my letters criticising them]

" Rita's allegations have been dismissed as a product of an over-imaginative mind except that emerging evidence supports her claims"

" We went to see Rita to find out whether she is mad, as her critics claim or whether in taking on the system, she is one of the bravest young women in Britain"

" Although her role has been similar to that of the whistleblower in The Insider, the Hollywood movie about the dangers of exposing corruption in the tobacco industry, Rita laughs and jokes easily when we interview her. Her thick hair looks lustrous in the sunlight. Not totally without vanity she takes off her glasses to be photographed"

" She chats animatedly about outings to see plays especially Asian ones such as the Balti Kings and East is East. She loves to play piano, mainly western classical music, as well as the clarinet and writes poetry as well."

We ask Rita : " What makes you tick?"

She replies " I've a very simple philosophy. I have been brought up to tell the truth. I don't care how people will react".

Since she began her fight against the NHS, her friends and colleagues, mindful possibly of damage to their career prospects, have deserted her.

For more than 50 years since its founding, the NHS has been the symbol of Britain's caring society and the envy of the world. Now, a young Bengali doctor is tearing that image to shreds.

I am grateful to Amit - only because I appreciated the human touch. We never kept in touch as life often moves on and journalists never have time for friends. People are often sources to use and discard. Nevertheless, it was an interesting and amusing meeting and one that made me understand the impact of what I considered to be the most natural thing in the world. I never termed it whistleblowing - I simply termed it " raising concerns to instigate an improvement in the system". I doubt that anyone intentionally aims to be the Enemy of the State. On occasion though it may just happen by accident.

TANGO WITH THE MEDIA

Dr Rita Pal is out of sync with the media

The media was the last resort. Having exhausted all possibilities locally and nationally, I felt it was my job as a doctor to raise these issues or at least to be brave enough to do so. Anyway, I initially attempted to get the concerns through the medical media. BMA News Review accepted and paid for a piece called PRHO on the Titanic.

The problem with BMA News Review was that they never did publish it. We then question why. Was it because the BMA termed me a " pain in the backside" which may well be true but they took my money for years then believed they could insult me behind my back. That's customer service for you. We can draw our own conclusions as to why it was never published.

From there, I progressed to local then national and international media.

I like the Sunday Mercury as a newspaper. They have always treated me extremely well. My favourite journalist of all time was Tom Wells and I owe him an awful lot. I have never really been fond of the rest of the media, turning down both Esther Rantzen and a number of other high profile TV programmes eg Panorama. The Sunday Times was probably the longest piece I assisted with. Meeting the two reporters for the Sunday Times was surreal. They had gone undercover to investigate my concerns. Mark had been fishing around for the entire week. They met me in a hotel room somewhere near Stoke on Trent. Mark Macaskill was probably the nicest. In retrospect, it was crazy meeting two men in a hotel room on my own. Jon though had problems with his ego much like many journalists of his ilk. He sneered as Jon did. The two journalists promised me a follow up but in the end they forgot their promises. That's what journalists do. Forget. Lois Rogers was though an interesting lady who spoke to me on the phone fascinated about the fact I was so transparent. It was though impossible to ensure that she understood the issues in play. The problem with journalists who are quite senior is that they have a view of their own. To challenge that view is often impossible. The next amusing meeting was with a journalist called Wendy for Panorama. I only remember her blank looks when I attempted to explain the importance of lack of equipment. I think the issue did not penetrate into her brain for some reason. Perhaps it was too much lipstick and eyeliner that day. She attempted to persuade me to carry a camera and do some undercover work for them. I refused this and told them to go find someone else as there were issues in patient confidentiality with any regulatory body that was not covered by public interest. Wendy of course thought she was more intelligent as did the rest of Panorama. A few years later, I found they had persuaded a poor nurse to do the undercover camera work. She was rumoured to have been disciplined by her regulatory body. At least they attempted it. Here is an interview with Margaret Haywood.


My decision to go to the media was to raise awareness of the true extent of poor patient care and the impact of Labour policies. Policy needed to be improved and patient care needed to be at a much higher standard. The story was expanded to the Daily Mail and to many other newspapers and propagated as quite "anti doctor". That was the journalist's interpretation of it. At the time, the journalists were obsessed with Harold Shipman. They didn't want to feature a case of shortage of equipment, basic staff etc, they featured a diamorphine spin. In the meantime, the GMC took what the journalists said as " my word" and was critical of me. What the GMC did not do was read the documents I had sent them on this specific issue. Later I would discover that the GMC had thought about reversing an investigation onto me. The evidence of this was found in Professor Griffith's [ Director of Public Health] letter [Reference EMP/199/ZRA and SMH/FPD/2004/1056] to the General Medical Council [ in the response to the complaint against him]. His lawyers stated as follows [page 4]

"Our client was asked by the General Medical Council as to why the Complainant might have made these allegations and whether our client thought that the General Medical Council should proceed against the complainant [Rita Pal] for making what appeared to be accusations in an unprofessional manner"

Later they would go on to quoting the media spin until I told the GMC that it might have been simpler for them to apply their minds to my documented concerns and actually read what was sent to them. Anyway, the GMC is quite media focussed. A tip for any complainant and this is learned from Penny Mellor - if you want to get the GMC to take your concerns seriously, spread it around the media [but this only applies if you are a relative]. If you are a doctor, the GMC thinks about reversing the procedure on you. That's what they did to Dr Peter Wilmshurst and to me.


The GMC has a good relationship with the media. The media is quite reluctant to criticise them in any way or form. That's what you get with a good PR machine at the GMC. It should also be noted that the GMC has a file complete newspaper articles about me. I think they even have the local media articles. What I often wonder about is this - don't they have anything better to do in their lives.


In general there was a reluctance in the media to blame Labour policy but they wanted to use the story as a " doctor bashing exercise" when that was not my intention. It was true that the doctors responsible for me where rather awful but that's a minority. The juniors and many other doctors were just trying to get on with their lives and work. There are bad apples but in the end most doctors try to do their best in quite oppressive circumstances.


It was for this reason, the media spun me into a target for doctors and it was also the reason for the vindictive frenzy on a doctors only web site that was not stopped by the company until a libel action was instigated and completed.


Gary Jones of the Mirror was particularly kind and featured short snippets. I was also on BBC Breakfast one morning progressing to Sky and Channel 4 News. The talk shows offers started but I became frustrated at the falsity of the media, and the manner in which my words had been twisted and the lack of concern for the series issues I wished to raise. At the time, to curb media attention, I threw my original mobile away and stopped responding to journalists. About that time, I started http://www.nhsexposed.com That was about the year 2000. Through that website many of us helped patients, doctors and many other people. The project expanded and was voted by the Times in the top 50 Health Websites in 2006. I was pleased that the simple stories of average folk ie the public was aired. That project was more rewarding than being the focus of media attention. It was also a far more constructive use of the knowledge I had gathered over the years.


The main aim really was to raise the concerns that were vital to improve patient care nationally. I also wanted the patients and relatives in Stoke on Trent to be aware of Ward 87. I suspect the fact that the local newspaper ie the Sentinel blocked a lot of the story did not help in raising awareness. I suspect the biggest achievement through this was a change of the DNR policy and instigation of a number of studies into involuntary euthanasia. The policy was issued 5/6 months after the Sunday Times article on the 2nd April 2000. It made it compulsory to discuss DNR notices with relatives. Anyhow, I think most people forget that I was the first doctor to raise the issue of DNR and a number of other issues regarding the NHS today. The Department of Health obliquely admitted to the policy review being due to concerns raised. Anyway, sometime ago, they kindly featured an article I had written Doctors Playing God can be read here.

The advert below is one I attempted to put into the Sentinel as my last effort to raise concerns in Stoke on Trent. Dave Blackhurst [Sentinel] has persistently blocked this story for reasons only known to himself. I suspect he prefers to feature questionable complainants like the Henshalls. Each to their own is all I say. If any relative wishes to blame any aspect of the media, I think the failure to raise concerns should fall directly on the Sentinel. It should also fall at Dave Blackhurst's door.

I though have to say Penny Mellor is definitely much better with dealing with the media. Possibly because she gives them the fictional sensation that I am not interested in. The fabulous Jonathan Gornall refers to Penny Mellor's "soundbites". Jonathan though knows how bad I am at dealing with journalists. They make me impatient, their lack of research makes me impatient, their ability to use people and discard them annoys me and their ability to sensationalise stories irritates me. I suspect playing to the media's tune is a bit like selling yourself out. That is how I have always felt. If journalists treat me with respect then I provide them with the same courtesy back.

Penny Mellor knows about selling herself out. She has a mutually symbiotic relationship with the media. She uses them, they use her. For some reason in her case, lies often become the truth by virtue of being printed in the media. Its though an interesting way of how she effectively harassed David Southall in Stoke on Trent.

Anyway, as everyone can see, the local paper ie the Sentinel blocked the advert. That was really the end of attempting to raise concerns with them.

The only people who lost out here were the Ward 87 patients and their relatives in Stoke on Trent. Their stories were not "soundbites" and they were not the focus of attention despite the suffering they experienced. That is of course how the world works in general. My advice to doctors - don't tango with the media.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rita Pal [mailto:rita@ritapal.com]
Sent: 10 February 2006 09:43
To: Adservices (Sentinel)
Subject: Advert
Importance: High

FAO Debbie Robbinson

Dear Debbie

Thanks for speaking to me about the advert.

The ad should read

2001 Whistleblowing Report into
Ward 87 City General Hospital available

on www.nhs-exposed.com

I would like a fairly largish ad that is obvious to the public.

The actual report is on the following link http://www.nhsexposed.com/patients/hospitals/nstaffs/city-general-hospital-report.shtml . For your own clarification - it is a report into the substandard care of patients on Ward 87 in 1998 -2001. It is an internal report obtained under the Freedom of Information Act ie it is a public document.

Please email me regarding the prices etc. Also, I would be grateful if you could let me know whether the ad could run for a few weeks - I would need quotes for that.

Please do get back to me as soon as you can - email is the better way of communication as I am pretty bad at answering my mobile while I am working.

I appreciate your help.

Dr Rita Pal

From: Berrisford, Tim (Sentinel)

To: 'Rita Pal'

Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 5:25 PM

Subject: FW: Sentinel Advert

Dear Dr Pal

Thank you for your interest in advertising with Staffordshire Sentinel Newspapers Ltd.

However, we have had to seek advice due to the nature of the ad, and we are regrettably unable to accept

your request to advertise.

Tim Berrisford

AdServices Team Leader
Staffordshire Sentinel Newspapers Ltd
Tel. 01782 602525 ext. 3070

Person Jonathan Gornall

Right click for SmartMenu shortcuts

Professor Monica Spit-ieri

Professor Monica Spit-eri

Professor in Respiratory Medicine Research theme: Imaging & Diagnostics - Lung Research Group Institute for Science & Technology in Medicine, Keele University Guy Hilton Research Centre, Thornburrow Drive, Hartshill Stoke-on-Trent, ST4 7QB UK +44 (0)1782 553024 +44 (0)1782 747319 monica.spiteri@uhns.nhs.uk or m.spiteri@virgin.net

GMC Reference Number 2532419 Given Names Monica Surname Spiteri Gender Woman Registration Status Registered More Details Primary Medical Qualification MRCS 1980 Royal College of Surgeons of England LRCP 1980 Royal College of Physicians of London Provisional Registration Date 01 Feb 1980 Full Registration Date 03 Feb 1981 Specialist Register entry date Respiratory medicine From 05 Jul 1996 GP Register entry date This doctor is not in the GP Register Information for Employers Details

This is Monica Spit-eri, Professor of Respiratory Medicine. In 1998, she was Consultant on Ward 87. As consultant Monica was responsible for the care of patients on the ward. Monica was not liked by her patients on Ward 87. Monica was also concerned at the level of litigation on her ward. Many patients wanted to complain about Monica's attitude and did. Monica was never concerned about the lack of basic care, the lack of basic equipment and the number of patients who died on the ward. Monica turned a blind eye and continued with her research. Monica was never interested in patients of course, she was interested in being Professor Spit-eri. Monica failed to report patient EP to the Coroner in 1998 despite the episode being fraught with the lack of basic equipment and staff. Monica also failed to do anything to solve the situation on Ward 87. Monica Spit-eri was non contactable in an emergency despite the GMC Guidance in New Doctor. Consultants should always support their junior doctors. Monica though felt she didn't have to. That's because Monica liked her research.

After the 2005 critical report came out, the GMC jumped on the 5 year rule and said that the complaints and findings should be screened out without investigation. It is interesting that the 5 year rule makes no difference in the Henshall case against the Department of Paediatrics.

The General Medical Council purports to work for the " public's interest". The GMC paid no attention to the neglect accepted by Professor Spiteri. The public may wish to look at the GMC's guidance on this issue "

Raising concerns about patient safety – paragraph 6

1. If you have good reason to think that patient safety is or may be seriously compromised by inadequate premises, equipment, or other resources, policies or systems, you should put the matter right if that is possible. In all other cases you should draw the matter to the attention of your employing or contracting body. If they do not take adequate action, you should take independent advice on how to take the matter further. You must record your concerns and the steps you have taken to try to resolve them.

This is why it is an irony that Dr Spit-eri was placed on a Respiratory Ward. She may have worn pearls, tottered in her suits as a tubby but stumpy consultant but we all know the patients hated her. There was a reason for that. Some patient testimonies will be placed on line soon. It also shows that the GMC ignore its own guidance when its convenient to them. At the time, no male consultant wanted to criticise Monica because of her reputation and fiery attitude. Monica should be struck off but she remains researching and on and is happily on the GMC register. Some people would say she is better out of "real medicine". We wonder if the public agrees with the GMC's decision? We wonder if the dead patients and those who were neglected agree with the GMC's decision?