Cats are unpredictableYesterday, I wrote a post describing my experiences with the Ungodlee BMJ Careers and its link to Neil Bacon. BMJ Careers was checked quite recently and the Rapid Responses disputed where on there. They now seem to have disappeared! :). Quelle Surprise!
It is a good job, I am good at saving things on hard disk. It is clear that their hapless lawyer Jonathan Crusher who has his own odd associations was given a hard time during pre-action. Put it this way, it always entertains me to see how much the BMJ are willing to pay out to lawyers to defend the stupidity of Neil Bacon. The only good thing about this sorry silly episode is that Jonathan Crusher was actually lovely and tried his level best to defend his stupid clients. It must be such a hard life to be controlled by the drive for money. At £450 plus VAT - and that is just for turning the page, we can only imagine how much the BMA threw in the legal coffers to defend their favourite golden boy Neil Bacon. Defending Neil's stupidity has cost everyone at a lot. His current backers and sponsors for iwantgreatcare.org should consider him as the weakest link. There isn't much point in having blonde hair and a nice smile if it can't be backed up with brain power.
It would be a darned shame if I found the rapid responses in cache. Imagine what that would do to the republication rule! Here is the printed correction, not that this matters anymore. Neil did all the damage he wanted to with his friend Fiona Godlee. I know Richard Smith would have told Neil to F off. But that is what happens when feminists are hired to edit the BMJ as opposed to men with balls of steel. While the doctors are falling apart and morale is low, Fiona concentrates on Carbon. This is the most entertaining dissection of Fiona Godlee's character.
It is true, in my view Fiona would have been better suited to being a lady of leisure. Some women can think, others just think about thinking. We should have a rateyourbmjeditor website so we can actually see all the mistakes Fiona has committed over the years as BMJ editor. Liz Miller has had a good banter about ratemegreat. Those at the BMJ should be rated as well.
Fiona Godlee/Stella Dutton once told me that her [Fiona's] feelings were hurt. Oh dear, I thought to myself, it is clear that only she hurts and the rest of the world doesn't. I suppose creating a uncontrolled and unnecessary litigation mess during my father's funeral didn't hurt. It is though termed " pain" and sympathy when applied to women at the BMJ, but defined as
" irrational behaviour" when applied to my defence. The end of the story in this case was this - I was right, the BMJ was wrong. Apologising to me would be beyond them. Fiona Godlee has not developed those skills yet.
That is of course the problem with Jane Smith and Fiona Godlee - women who think they have insight but in reality should have been locked away by their husbands so they don't create havoc on the publication waves. Perhaps cooking may have been a better occupation because it is clear they are incapable of running a fair and just journal that represents the views of the majority as opposed to a minority of posh upper class snobs. The difference between Godlee, Jane Smith and myself is that I say it as it is publicly and they say it behind closed doors - with Tony Delamonthe, the token housewife supporting all their antics. There is a difference between real men and door mats. Graham Easton. Richard Smith and Kamran Abassi are real men, Tony is not.
Anyway, here is the list of Rapid Responses made by the doctors [see below]. I fully agree with free speech/criticism but I don't agree with sheer stupidity. This is placed online because I was never allowed to respond. Each posting broadly criticised the fact there was no declaration of conflict - that was of course the mistake of the BMJ - as there always was a written declaration of conflict. This combined with the BMA News failure to publish PRHO on the Titanic - written in 1999 and a piece they paid for combined with their stupidity in missing me out as author on the piece I wrote with Bolsin et al just goes to show that the journal is incompetent/malicious or simply both. It is also an interesting example of the dangers of dis inhibited group attacks on the internet spilling out into real life. It is also an example of frenzied, sheeplike behaviour where right and wrong does not matter. A effective defence is always perceived as obsessional litigation but litigation is only a means by which your rights are demanded back. I am aware that stories expand, widen, altered, enhanced, uplifted and the news flies around so far that there are very few who go back to look at the real facts. That is the danger of defamation, that is the danger of iwantgreatcare.org.
The material is placed online as an examination of defamation battles and the sort of thing doctors are likely to face with iwantgreatcare. Stephen O Hanlon the doctor formerly known as Liam Donaldson was rather misbehaved but we can't expect a great deal for Mr Cutestuff. ENT obviously doesn't tax him enough. It cannot be pleasant to spend his days getting up every one's noses. He is though extremely lucky I didn't chase after his goldfish collection and his origami paper as payment for damages and costs. As I say, bigger fish to fry in the sea as always. Small fish are always more entertaining to write about. I can understand why Stephen would defend his goldfish bowl. Libel cases often put goldfish bowls out of business.
It is a good job, I am good at saving things on hard disk. It is clear that their hapless lawyer Jonathan Crusher who has his own odd associations was given a hard time during pre-action. Put it this way, it always entertains me to see how much the BMJ are willing to pay out to lawyers to defend the stupidity of Neil Bacon. The only good thing about this sorry silly episode is that Jonathan Crusher was actually lovely and tried his level best to defend his stupid clients. It must be such a hard life to be controlled by the drive for money. At £450 plus VAT - and that is just for turning the page, we can only imagine how much the BMA threw in the legal coffers to defend their favourite golden boy Neil Bacon. Defending Neil's stupidity has cost everyone at a lot. His current backers and sponsors for iwantgreatcare.org should consider him as the weakest link. There isn't much point in having blonde hair and a nice smile if it can't be backed up with brain power.
It would be a darned shame if I found the rapid responses in cache. Imagine what that would do to the republication rule! Here is the printed correction, not that this matters anymore. Neil did all the damage he wanted to with his friend Fiona Godlee. I know Richard Smith would have told Neil to F off. But that is what happens when feminists are hired to edit the BMJ as opposed to men with balls of steel. While the doctors are falling apart and morale is low, Fiona concentrates on Carbon. This is the most entertaining dissection of Fiona Godlee's character.
It is true, in my view Fiona would have been better suited to being a lady of leisure. Some women can think, others just think about thinking. We should have a rateyourbmjeditor website so we can actually see all the mistakes Fiona has committed over the years as BMJ editor. Liz Miller has had a good banter about ratemegreat. Those at the BMJ should be rated as well.
Fiona Godlee/Stella Dutton once told me that her [Fiona's] feelings were hurt. Oh dear, I thought to myself, it is clear that only she hurts and the rest of the world doesn't. I suppose creating a uncontrolled and unnecessary litigation mess during my father's funeral didn't hurt. It is though termed " pain" and sympathy when applied to women at the BMJ, but defined as
" irrational behaviour" when applied to my defence. The end of the story in this case was this - I was right, the BMJ was wrong. Apologising to me would be beyond them. Fiona Godlee has not developed those skills yet.
That is of course the problem with Jane Smith and Fiona Godlee - women who think they have insight but in reality should have been locked away by their husbands so they don't create havoc on the publication waves. Perhaps cooking may have been a better occupation because it is clear they are incapable of running a fair and just journal that represents the views of the majority as opposed to a minority of posh upper class snobs. The difference between Godlee, Jane Smith and myself is that I say it as it is publicly and they say it behind closed doors - with Tony Delamonthe, the token housewife supporting all their antics. There is a difference between real men and door mats. Graham Easton. Richard Smith and Kamran Abassi are real men, Tony is not.
Anyway, here is the list of Rapid Responses made by the doctors [see below]. I fully agree with free speech/criticism but I don't agree with sheer stupidity. This is placed online because I was never allowed to respond. Each posting broadly criticised the fact there was no declaration of conflict - that was of course the mistake of the BMJ - as there always was a written declaration of conflict. This combined with the BMA News failure to publish PRHO on the Titanic - written in 1999 and a piece they paid for combined with their stupidity in missing me out as author on the piece I wrote with Bolsin et al just goes to show that the journal is incompetent/malicious or simply both. It is also an interesting example of the dangers of dis inhibited group attacks on the internet spilling out into real life. It is also an example of frenzied, sheeplike behaviour where right and wrong does not matter. A effective defence is always perceived as obsessional litigation but litigation is only a means by which your rights are demanded back. I am aware that stories expand, widen, altered, enhanced, uplifted and the news flies around so far that there are very few who go back to look at the real facts. That is the danger of defamation, that is the danger of iwantgreatcare.org.
The material is placed online as an examination of defamation battles and the sort of thing doctors are likely to face with iwantgreatcare. Stephen O Hanlon the doctor formerly known as Liam Donaldson was rather misbehaved but we can't expect a great deal for Mr Cutestuff. ENT obviously doesn't tax him enough. It cannot be pleasant to spend his days getting up every one's noses. He is though extremely lucky I didn't chase after his goldfish collection and his origami paper as payment for damages and costs. As I say, bigger fish to fry in the sea as always. Small fish are always more entertaining to write about. I can understand why Stephen would defend his goldfish bowl. Libel cases often put goldfish bowls out of business.
![[Read Rapid Response]](file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/RITAPA%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image001.gif){kind=small}
Conflict of interest
Glynne Andrew (28 December 2005)
Conflict of Interest
Jonathan B Whiteside (1 December 2005)
Amicable?
Adrian K Midgley (28 November 2005)
Author's declared competing interests
Graham Easton (28 November 2005)
Conflict of interest?
Stephen O'Hanlon (28 November 2005)
Conflict of interest
Passing Medic (28 November 2005)
Competing Interests
Alec Wilson (28 November 2005)
0 comments:
Post a Comment