at West Midlands Deanery - Hazard County 1998.
In the good old days in Hazard County back in 98, we didn't have Boss Hogg but we certainly had someone very similar. His name was Professor Sir John Temple. In 1998, he was simply Professor John Temple. As many of you will have read the minor banter on David Fillingham, my theory is that the more patients that are killed in the NHS, means the more likelihood there is of being honoured by the Queen. This happened to David Fillingham and it also happened to Professor Temple. We should introduce the Fat Man of West Midlands Deanery properly so here we go.
Professor John Temple has always been known to all junior doctors as " Boss Hogg" for obvious reasons. No one liked him for a start. Anyway, to the more formal introduction, here goes :-
"John Temple is a native of Salford, from where he entered Liverpool Medical School, qualifying in 1965 with an Honours degree and a distinction in Surgery. His postgraduate training was in the Mersey region and in 1974 he was appointed Senior Lecturer in the Department of Surgery at Manchester University and Hope Hospital, Salford. In 1979 he moved to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, as Consultant Surgeon with an interest in gastro-intestinal surgery. His unit rapidly became a regional centre for oesophageal surgery. He was awarded a personal chair in surgery by the University of Birmingham in 1996. His interest in training resulted in his appointment as Deputy, and in 1991 as postgraduate Dean in the West Midlands, a post he held until 2000. From 1995 to 2000 he chaired the UK Committee of Postgraduate Medical Deans (COPMeD). In 1995 he was invited by the Chief Medical Officer to lead the implementation of the Calman Higher Specialist reforms. In 1997 he became a member of the Council of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh and subsequently led the Council as its President from 2000 to 2003. He is currently Chair of the Research Development Council of the Healing Foundation and Hon. Colonel of the 202 (Midlands) Field Hospital.
John has served on and led numerous academic, educational, Department of Health and other professional bodies. He holds honorary fellowships or the equivalent of 14 colleges and associations in 10 counties. He was made a Knight Bachelor in the Queen’s birthday honours in 2003 for services to medicine and medical education"
Professor John Temple and I had an interesting meeting. Following the events with Professor Brenton and the failure of these seniors to get me out of Stoke on Trent, I was summoned to Professor Temple's office.
North Staffordshire NHS Trust had blocked any effort I made to obtain a surgical post in February 1999. I had applied to Kent and also to Birmingham. Mr Lee in Birmingham was keen to hire me until he made contact with his ex colleagues in North Staffordshire NHS Trust. After that, he politely told me I was wanted in Stoke on Trent and that I could not get out of it. It was of course all about control. The fact that I was being victimised to high heaven wasn't something that was acknowledged.
I of course knew what North Staffordshire NHS Trust wanted to do to me. They had planned to discipline me on matters I was cleared of and later memos show this. Of course, North Staffordshire NHS Trust wanted to frame me, throw me to the wolves and leave me in tatters. I made my mind up never to go back to North Staffordshire NHS Trust and it was vital to get out of the clutches of a bunch of psychopaths. There is of course no other term one can use for them.
They fitted the profile quite nicely really.
The way the meeting with Professor Temple was set up was after a stern phonecall from my sister as no one else assisted in this issue. Essentially, Professor Temple was told off by my sister. He had lied and denied that he knew anything about me. Later documentation would show that Fiona Moss and Elizabeth Paice had already written to him as had North Staffordshire NHS Trust as had Dr Colin Campbell. The problem with people who lie repeatedly is that they fail to remember what they have said and to whom they have said it. That was the problem with Professor Temple.
Now, I was exhausted by January 1999. Life wasn't peachy. In fact, it was far from peachy. Spirals of bad luck is much like a domino effect, one thing leads to another. Most people find that. Anyway, as I always felt chocolate was the answer, I resorted to it. It was default management of large amounts of c**** thrown in your direction by a series of doctors who were not only incompetent but should never have been hired to take care of junior doctors. I can of course say this now - in hindsight and with various reports under my belt.
In January 1999, I met with Professor John Temple and his sidekick. The two doctors sat there staring at me. Professor Temple said " So what did you do wrong then"? Anyway, I attempted to explain the issues. He never listened. He then looked at me and said " You should not have asked for more equipment should you"? At this point, I thought " What a prat!" and they allow people like this to be head of the medical profession?". The thoughts running through my head were " Why shouldn't I have asked for more equipment"? I needed equipment to do the work. What was so damned complicated about that?". This simple request had built up into a large issue. An issue that was debated everywhere - from the Deanery to the GMC. No one actually sorted out the basic problem though. The hierachy of the medical profession is much like a talking shop with no practical application in real life. I was annoyed internally while I fakely smiled at Professor Temple. Sure, I knew what I had to do - play the meek little obedient junior doctor and persuade him that I had " apparently learned my lesson and that I would never ever ever ring up for more equipment again".
He went onto telling me about how I should not go to the media. Professor Temple and I effectively made a deal. I gave him what he wanted to hear and he game me a job out of Stoke on Trent. It was business. He gave me another job on the promise I would be good. At the end of this discussion he made no mention of how patient care was going to improve or whether they had taken my concerns seriously. Of course, we all knew nothing would be done. They had controlled their junior doctor, attempted to train her, attempted to silence her and attempted to make deals with her. Their job was done. The lid was not blown. Why on earth would they want to care about what happened to the patients?
The problem with looking into people's eyes is that you see what darkness they hold behind their facade. Professor Temple was rather dark. Infact, had he got himself a cowboy hat, he would have looked just like Boss Hogg of the Dukes of Hazard. Being a fan of the series, I knew that our Boss Hogg here was up to no good. He may have been fat, he may have been bald and he may have been a professor but he was not a good man.
Anyway, on occasion you have to deal cards with the devil and on this occasion that is exactly what it felt like. I needed a job, I needed money to live and he needed my silence. Not all people can be bought that easily of course.
Professor Temple had purchased my silence - temporarily of course. Nevertheless, the deal was done. A new job was opened for me at Selly Oak Hospital with the insanely good looking Mr Allen Edwards, Consultant Surgeon. As is always the case, men who are good looking often turn out to be fairly disappointing when you get to know them and it was no different for Allen Edwards.
The biggest mistake Professor Temple and his sidekick made that day was to provide me with a counselling card. This game was played before through Fiona Moss and Elizabeth Paice. I took the card, I also threw the card in his bin on the way out. What was counselling going to do to solve this problem? Was it going to make the problems on the ward go away? Of course, it wasn't so what was the point of counselling. That is though want senior doctors who are inept people do - they hand out counselling cards. It is a sort of "feel good" factor where the seniors with their poor people skills feel they have done their job. They missed the point though - I wanted something done about the ward. No one though wanted to do anything about this ward.
I didn't want to go crying to someone, analysing what I had done as if it had been wrong. I wanted something resembling justice. I wanted someone to take the concerns seriously, to take me seriously and to understand that it was a long term problem at the ward. This was of course never forthcoming. The disappointing aspect of this is that Professor Temple at the top of his profession did not actually care about the patients who died. I had questions in my mind - why on earth did they become doctors if they didn't care about patients? It was simple question but there are many reasons people become doctors - one of them is status and power.
It is important to narrate this section in the full glare of the public eye because it is vital to observe the way seniors treat whistleblowers. I had raised concerns internally. I had raised concerns right to the top of the profession. Each senior doctor did nothing to instigate proper investigations into the concerns I raised. Each time, the pointed finger was directed at me. On each occasion, I was the problem. Quite frankly, over time I got fed up of of this unidirectional pointing and scrutinising. Defending yourself constantly is no easy task, believe me.
Now, at this juncture, I am of the view that it is important to study the issues surrounding Professor Sir John Temple. In the Healing Project, he says as follows " Our goal is to support research of the very highest standard in order to deliver real benefits to the patient as safely and as quickly as possible" . Let us therefore see whether Professor Temple really believes in what he advertises.
On the 18th February 2000, the Birmingham Evening Mail carried an interview with Professor John Temple, the then postgraduate dean for the West Midlands NHS Executive, in which he vigorously defended the quality of care provided by the health service and the levels of support offered to junior doctors. In a direct quote, Professor Temple stressed that junior doctors were no longer left to work unsupervised, as they once were. He said, “Over the last five years one of the things that has changed quite dramatically is that doctors are supervised properly. All junior doctors should be supervised, and they’re required to know who they should contact and how in times of emergencies. The world has changed since the times these doctors were left on their own and we’re keen to ensure that there’s a very clear chain of command. We expect them to work as teams, not as individuals.”
Between 1st October 2001 and 27th March 2002, the Commission for Health Improvement carried out a Clinical Governance Review at North Staffordshire Hospital NHS Trust, which included City General Hospital, Stoke on Trent – one of the hospitals I had identified as lacking in supervision for junior doctors in the February 2000 Birmingham Evening Mail article. In a report published in March 2002, the CHI review found that the levels of supervision, workload and work patterns of junior doctors working in medicine at the Trust posed a potential risk to patients, and were therefore a cause for concern. Paragraph 5.34 of the report read, “CHI was informed that junior doctors working in medicine were often inadequately supervised and often left alone on wards, particularly on the medical assessment unit (MAU). During an evening visit we found only two junior doctors covering MAU, which was full to capacity, with a further junior doctor covering MAU and emergency admissions; one junior doctor covered the medical wards and one covered medical outliers but these patients could be on wards on either site. CHI felt this situation posed a potential clinical risk to patients. This was brought to the attention of the trust.”
These findings are at odds with Professor Temple’s public assurances, made more than a year before the CHI review, that “doctors are properly supervised.” Apparently, the world had not changed all that much “since the times these doctors were left on their own.”
On the 2nd December 1998, Dr Colin Campbell, who was the North Staffordshire Postgraduate Tutor, wrote to Dr John Green, the clinical director at City General Hospital, Stoke on Trent, saying, “To summarise other discussions that we have had on the medical PRHOs, I think that the following should be addressed within the directorate as a matter of urgency - (2) They should have proper clinical supervision at all times and help from a more experienced colleague... should always be available (The New Doctor GMC). On discussion with several of them they are still working without immediate supervision for significant periods.”
The above letter was found in the subject access request under the Data Protection Act at the West Midlands Deanery. Professor Temple was therefore aware of it all but denied this to the media. Having denied all knowledge of it, we find the following in the documents
In his 2nd December 1998 letter to Dr John Green, Dr Colin Campbell wrote, “As far as Miss Pal's education is concerned I am trying to decide in conjunction with John Temple what is the best thing to do … I hope we can sort this out quickly as it seems to have come at an awkward time as we are just about to formally apply for the new PRHO rotation I am hoping to attract to the district … We should not forget that they are the only medical trainees that have no protected time for study leave 'off the job' (presumably because 100% of the time is paid for from the educational budget and therefore it is all supposed to be education) … If we do not sort this out we will not only continue to receive adverse comments on the posts but will stand little chance of attracting new training posts in medicine at this grade - and it would be a great asset to us all if we did so.”
In summary, Prof Temple had told my sister that he was not aware of my case in January 1999. He had though been contacted by Dr Campbell before December 1998. He then denied there was a problem with the supervision of junior doctors, yet less than a year later the report [ which covered 1998] showed there were significant problems. Essentially, we can conclude that Professor Temple is fond of manipulating the truth to his advantage showing again that he had limited concern for patient safety.
Professor Temple was no stranger to controversy or courts.
On 21st December 1999, a Birmingham Employment Tribunal found that Professor Temple and two other senior doctors had victimised another doctor, Dr D H Malkan, because he had previously raised concerns about racial discrimination. Of Professor Temple, the Tribunal said, “… we can look at the correspondence that Mr Malkan was sending to the Deanery. It was hardly conciliatory. It was demanding. It was also abrasive. Certainly, the impression we got was that if you approached Professor Temple abrasively you would get a deal more abrasion back. We have no doubt that Professor Temple, by the nature of his position and his profession, is of very strong views. He may express them in tribunal in a civilised way, but we judged him over the days he was in the witness box and the days he came into tribunal to observe. There is no doubt that he is capable, in our opinion, of taking a very strong view, even though that view would hurt.”
The Tribunal went on to find that, “… here was a man [Dr Malkan] that was being treated to his detriment, his qualifications challenged, his bona fides challenged, and one of the principal reasons for that was because he had taken the authorities to tribunal. He was complaining about racism. We take the view that those people who were listening to Mr Malkan's case, rather than sitting there and listening were going to proactively put him down. They were there to support Professor Temple's decision and to support that decision which was no doubt justified on an interpretation of the Orange Guide, but they were going to treat Mr Malkan harshly. It was time to put a stop, is the view, we think, they took to this man's unjustified complaints, but they were complaints of race discrimination and they were complaints to an industrial tribunal. It follows, therefore, that that man, during a meeting reviewing the decision of Professor Temple, was victimised and the legislation was breached. … the majority find that at the review meeting, or the appeal meeting, whichever way it is called, the applicant was done down, not because of his race, but because he complained of discrimination and had taken the authorities (and we use the general phrase) to tribunal. The Act has been breached, we adjourn the case to consider remedy"
He also had a role to play in the case of whistleblower Mr Robert Phipps.
The prize in this world for manipulating the truth, for placing patients at significant risk and for concealing the situation is of course an award by the Queen. Again we ask the question, how many patient lives did Professor Temple place at risk? That is an uncomfortable question for another day. That is of course an uncomfortable question for even the General Medical Council who have graced this website with their presence. The efforts to cover this issue up went right up through Professor Temple's friend who is of course Professor Rod Griffiths - a man who recieved a CBE for his role in compulsive manipulator of the facts. Do I dare call them corrupt? Well, perhaps intellectual corruption :)
Professor Temple in many ways was much like Boss Hogg. He had his side kicks who woofed occasionally and never dared to challenge him. Overall, he owned and controlled Hazard County [West Midlands Deanery] for many years. His reign came to an end of course and he took his special talents elsewhere. At the end of each episode of Dukes of Hazard, it is always Boss Hogg who gets caught. Lets call this the end of one particular episode :).
Professor John Temple has always been known to all junior doctors as " Boss Hogg" for obvious reasons. No one liked him for a start. Anyway, to the more formal introduction, here goes :-
"John Temple is a native of Salford, from where he entered Liverpool Medical School, qualifying in 1965 with an Honours degree and a distinction in Surgery. His postgraduate training was in the Mersey region and in 1974 he was appointed Senior Lecturer in the Department of Surgery at Manchester University and Hope Hospital, Salford. In 1979 he moved to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, as Consultant Surgeon with an interest in gastro-intestinal surgery. His unit rapidly became a regional centre for oesophageal surgery. He was awarded a personal chair in surgery by the University of Birmingham in 1996. His interest in training resulted in his appointment as Deputy, and in 1991 as postgraduate Dean in the West Midlands, a post he held until 2000. From 1995 to 2000 he chaired the UK Committee of Postgraduate Medical Deans (COPMeD). In 1995 he was invited by the Chief Medical Officer to lead the implementation of the Calman Higher Specialist reforms. In 1997 he became a member of the Council of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh and subsequently led the Council as its President from 2000 to 2003. He is currently Chair of the Research Development Council of the Healing Foundation and Hon. Colonel of the 202 (Midlands) Field Hospital.
John has served on and led numerous academic, educational, Department of Health and other professional bodies. He holds honorary fellowships or the equivalent of 14 colleges and associations in 10 counties. He was made a Knight Bachelor in the Queen’s birthday honours in 2003 for services to medicine and medical education"
Professor John Temple and I had an interesting meeting. Following the events with Professor Brenton and the failure of these seniors to get me out of Stoke on Trent, I was summoned to Professor Temple's office.
North Staffordshire NHS Trust had blocked any effort I made to obtain a surgical post in February 1999. I had applied to Kent and also to Birmingham. Mr Lee in Birmingham was keen to hire me until he made contact with his ex colleagues in North Staffordshire NHS Trust. After that, he politely told me I was wanted in Stoke on Trent and that I could not get out of it. It was of course all about control. The fact that I was being victimised to high heaven wasn't something that was acknowledged.
I of course knew what North Staffordshire NHS Trust wanted to do to me. They had planned to discipline me on matters I was cleared of and later memos show this. Of course, North Staffordshire NHS Trust wanted to frame me, throw me to the wolves and leave me in tatters. I made my mind up never to go back to North Staffordshire NHS Trust and it was vital to get out of the clutches of a bunch of psychopaths. There is of course no other term one can use for them.
They fitted the profile quite nicely really.
The way the meeting with Professor Temple was set up was after a stern phonecall from my sister as no one else assisted in this issue. Essentially, Professor Temple was told off by my sister. He had lied and denied that he knew anything about me. Later documentation would show that Fiona Moss and Elizabeth Paice had already written to him as had North Staffordshire NHS Trust as had Dr Colin Campbell. The problem with people who lie repeatedly is that they fail to remember what they have said and to whom they have said it. That was the problem with Professor Temple.
Now, I was exhausted by January 1999. Life wasn't peachy. In fact, it was far from peachy. Spirals of bad luck is much like a domino effect, one thing leads to another. Most people find that. Anyway, as I always felt chocolate was the answer, I resorted to it. It was default management of large amounts of c**** thrown in your direction by a series of doctors who were not only incompetent but should never have been hired to take care of junior doctors. I can of course say this now - in hindsight and with various reports under my belt.
In January 1999, I met with Professor John Temple and his sidekick. The two doctors sat there staring at me. Professor Temple said " So what did you do wrong then"? Anyway, I attempted to explain the issues. He never listened. He then looked at me and said " You should not have asked for more equipment should you"? At this point, I thought " What a prat!" and they allow people like this to be head of the medical profession?". The thoughts running through my head were " Why shouldn't I have asked for more equipment"? I needed equipment to do the work. What was so damned complicated about that?". This simple request had built up into a large issue. An issue that was debated everywhere - from the Deanery to the GMC. No one actually sorted out the basic problem though. The hierachy of the medical profession is much like a talking shop with no practical application in real life. I was annoyed internally while I fakely smiled at Professor Temple. Sure, I knew what I had to do - play the meek little obedient junior doctor and persuade him that I had " apparently learned my lesson and that I would never ever ever ring up for more equipment again".
He went onto telling me about how I should not go to the media. Professor Temple and I effectively made a deal. I gave him what he wanted to hear and he game me a job out of Stoke on Trent. It was business. He gave me another job on the promise I would be good. At the end of this discussion he made no mention of how patient care was going to improve or whether they had taken my concerns seriously. Of course, we all knew nothing would be done. They had controlled their junior doctor, attempted to train her, attempted to silence her and attempted to make deals with her. Their job was done. The lid was not blown. Why on earth would they want to care about what happened to the patients?
The problem with looking into people's eyes is that you see what darkness they hold behind their facade. Professor Temple was rather dark. Infact, had he got himself a cowboy hat, he would have looked just like Boss Hogg of the Dukes of Hazard. Being a fan of the series, I knew that our Boss Hogg here was up to no good. He may have been fat, he may have been bald and he may have been a professor but he was not a good man.
Anyway, on occasion you have to deal cards with the devil and on this occasion that is exactly what it felt like. I needed a job, I needed money to live and he needed my silence. Not all people can be bought that easily of course.
Professor Temple had purchased my silence - temporarily of course. Nevertheless, the deal was done. A new job was opened for me at Selly Oak Hospital with the insanely good looking Mr Allen Edwards, Consultant Surgeon. As is always the case, men who are good looking often turn out to be fairly disappointing when you get to know them and it was no different for Allen Edwards.
The biggest mistake Professor Temple and his sidekick made that day was to provide me with a counselling card. This game was played before through Fiona Moss and Elizabeth Paice. I took the card, I also threw the card in his bin on the way out. What was counselling going to do to solve this problem? Was it going to make the problems on the ward go away? Of course, it wasn't so what was the point of counselling. That is though want senior doctors who are inept people do - they hand out counselling cards. It is a sort of "feel good" factor where the seniors with their poor people skills feel they have done their job. They missed the point though - I wanted something done about the ward. No one though wanted to do anything about this ward.
I didn't want to go crying to someone, analysing what I had done as if it had been wrong. I wanted something resembling justice. I wanted someone to take the concerns seriously, to take me seriously and to understand that it was a long term problem at the ward. This was of course never forthcoming. The disappointing aspect of this is that Professor Temple at the top of his profession did not actually care about the patients who died. I had questions in my mind - why on earth did they become doctors if they didn't care about patients? It was simple question but there are many reasons people become doctors - one of them is status and power.
It is important to narrate this section in the full glare of the public eye because it is vital to observe the way seniors treat whistleblowers. I had raised concerns internally. I had raised concerns right to the top of the profession. Each senior doctor did nothing to instigate proper investigations into the concerns I raised. Each time, the pointed finger was directed at me. On each occasion, I was the problem. Quite frankly, over time I got fed up of of this unidirectional pointing and scrutinising. Defending yourself constantly is no easy task, believe me.
Now, at this juncture, I am of the view that it is important to study the issues surrounding Professor Sir John Temple. In the Healing Project, he says as follows " Our goal is to support research of the very highest standard in order to deliver real benefits to the patient as safely and as quickly as possible" . Let us therefore see whether Professor Temple really believes in what he advertises.
On the 18th February 2000, the Birmingham Evening Mail carried an interview with Professor John Temple, the then postgraduate dean for the West Midlands NHS Executive, in which he vigorously defended the quality of care provided by the health service and the levels of support offered to junior doctors. In a direct quote, Professor Temple stressed that junior doctors were no longer left to work unsupervised, as they once were. He said, “Over the last five years one of the things that has changed quite dramatically is that doctors are supervised properly. All junior doctors should be supervised, and they’re required to know who they should contact and how in times of emergencies. The world has changed since the times these doctors were left on their own and we’re keen to ensure that there’s a very clear chain of command. We expect them to work as teams, not as individuals.”
Between 1st October 2001 and 27th March 2002, the Commission for Health Improvement carried out a Clinical Governance Review at North Staffordshire Hospital NHS Trust, which included City General Hospital, Stoke on Trent – one of the hospitals I had identified as lacking in supervision for junior doctors in the February 2000 Birmingham Evening Mail article. In a report published in March 2002, the CHI review found that the levels of supervision, workload and work patterns of junior doctors working in medicine at the Trust posed a potential risk to patients, and were therefore a cause for concern. Paragraph 5.34 of the report read, “CHI was informed that junior doctors working in medicine were often inadequately supervised and often left alone on wards, particularly on the medical assessment unit (MAU). During an evening visit we found only two junior doctors covering MAU, which was full to capacity, with a further junior doctor covering MAU and emergency admissions; one junior doctor covered the medical wards and one covered medical outliers but these patients could be on wards on either site. CHI felt this situation posed a potential clinical risk to patients. This was brought to the attention of the trust.”
These findings are at odds with Professor Temple’s public assurances, made more than a year before the CHI review, that “doctors are properly supervised.” Apparently, the world had not changed all that much “since the times these doctors were left on their own.”
On the 2nd December 1998, Dr Colin Campbell, who was the North Staffordshire Postgraduate Tutor, wrote to Dr John Green, the clinical director at City General Hospital, Stoke on Trent, saying, “To summarise other discussions that we have had on the medical PRHOs, I think that the following should be addressed within the directorate as a matter of urgency - (2) They should have proper clinical supervision at all times and help from a more experienced colleague... should always be available (The New Doctor GMC). On discussion with several of them they are still working without immediate supervision for significant periods.”
The above letter was found in the subject access request under the Data Protection Act at the West Midlands Deanery. Professor Temple was therefore aware of it all but denied this to the media. Having denied all knowledge of it, we find the following in the documents
In his 2nd December 1998 letter to Dr John Green, Dr Colin Campbell wrote, “As far as Miss Pal's education is concerned I am trying to decide in conjunction with John Temple what is the best thing to do … I hope we can sort this out quickly as it seems to have come at an awkward time as we are just about to formally apply for the new PRHO rotation I am hoping to attract to the district … We should not forget that they are the only medical trainees that have no protected time for study leave 'off the job' (presumably because 100% of the time is paid for from the educational budget and therefore it is all supposed to be education) … If we do not sort this out we will not only continue to receive adverse comments on the posts but will stand little chance of attracting new training posts in medicine at this grade - and it would be a great asset to us all if we did so.”
In summary, Prof Temple had told my sister that he was not aware of my case in January 1999. He had though been contacted by Dr Campbell before December 1998. He then denied there was a problem with the supervision of junior doctors, yet less than a year later the report [ which covered 1998] showed there were significant problems. Essentially, we can conclude that Professor Temple is fond of manipulating the truth to his advantage showing again that he had limited concern for patient safety.
Professor Temple was no stranger to controversy or courts.
On 21st December 1999, a Birmingham Employment Tribunal found that Professor Temple and two other senior doctors had victimised another doctor, Dr D H Malkan, because he had previously raised concerns about racial discrimination. Of Professor Temple, the Tribunal said, “… we can look at the correspondence that Mr Malkan was sending to the Deanery. It was hardly conciliatory. It was demanding. It was also abrasive. Certainly, the impression we got was that if you approached Professor Temple abrasively you would get a deal more abrasion back. We have no doubt that Professor Temple, by the nature of his position and his profession, is of very strong views. He may express them in tribunal in a civilised way, but we judged him over the days he was in the witness box and the days he came into tribunal to observe. There is no doubt that he is capable, in our opinion, of taking a very strong view, even though that view would hurt.”
The Tribunal went on to find that, “… here was a man [Dr Malkan] that was being treated to his detriment, his qualifications challenged, his bona fides challenged, and one of the principal reasons for that was because he had taken the authorities to tribunal. He was complaining about racism. We take the view that those people who were listening to Mr Malkan's case, rather than sitting there and listening were going to proactively put him down. They were there to support Professor Temple's decision and to support that decision which was no doubt justified on an interpretation of the Orange Guide, but they were going to treat Mr Malkan harshly. It was time to put a stop, is the view, we think, they took to this man's unjustified complaints, but they were complaints of race discrimination and they were complaints to an industrial tribunal. It follows, therefore, that that man, during a meeting reviewing the decision of Professor Temple, was victimised and the legislation was breached. … the majority find that at the review meeting, or the appeal meeting, whichever way it is called, the applicant was done down, not because of his race, but because he complained of discrimination and had taken the authorities (and we use the general phrase) to tribunal. The Act has been breached, we adjourn the case to consider remedy"
He also had a role to play in the case of whistleblower Mr Robert Phipps.
The prize in this world for manipulating the truth, for placing patients at significant risk and for concealing the situation is of course an award by the Queen. Again we ask the question, how many patient lives did Professor Temple place at risk? That is an uncomfortable question for another day. That is of course an uncomfortable question for even the General Medical Council who have graced this website with their presence. The efforts to cover this issue up went right up through Professor Temple's friend who is of course Professor Rod Griffiths - a man who recieved a CBE for his role in compulsive manipulator of the facts. Do I dare call them corrupt? Well, perhaps intellectual corruption :)
Professor Temple in many ways was much like Boss Hogg. He had his side kicks who woofed occasionally and never dared to challenge him. Overall, he owned and controlled Hazard County [West Midlands Deanery] for many years. His reign came to an end of course and he took his special talents elsewhere. At the end of each episode of Dukes of Hazard, it is always Boss Hogg who gets caught. Lets call this the end of one particular episode :).
1 comments:
I once saw that man
In his office in Brum Uni
It was like meeting the devil incarnate...
He told me to leave medicine (the bastard was following in I D Greens footsteps)
The man was an unmitigated disaster area He ruled by fear and loathing.
Needless to say I left Birmingham within 6 months
He was sweetness and light when I was on the JDC though... It was like a complete character switch but he was so inconsistent back then, He was shifty alright
Post a Comment