British Medical Association. The BMA Loves Harold Shipman

If anyone gets bored of reading about the BMA.
Watch Jamie Callum. Excellent song - What a difference a day makes.

This evening I have been playing Jamie Callum. Jamie Callum makes me think clearly. That is what jazz does. I have also been clearing the huge amount of files I have been married to over the years. This is a mammoth task. Part of my task this year is to make the majority of documents into electronic form so each day I do a little bit. Today, I finally found the pile of papers related to the BMA. I first discussed the BMA here. Following that, a number of people wanted to see the real McCoy - ie the real documents. I have therefore scanned them in. Before the MMC catastrophe, the BMA was criticised by a select few rebels. These rebels were thrown out of a doctors only web site. Last year, I wrote a summary of the antics of these rebels. Essentially, their lawyers were found guilty of professional misconduct by the Law Society. Few people know about the BMA's sordid history especially related to Shipman.

The BMA's intervention in Dr Shipman's trial is interesting. It appears accidental and naive but I suspect the BMA wanted to sabotage the trial and free him. Every single person knows about contempt of court in criminal trials. The BMA pleaded their innocence but I don't believe them.

Huge blunders - made by Rock FM and the British Medical Association - nearly wrecked the Preston Crown Court trial and would have meant Shipman could not, at the time, be proved guilty in a fair manner - it's doubtful whether he could have then received an impartial retrial, in the eyes of the law.

A Rock FM radio presenter told listeners the medic was guilty, six weeks before the verdict.

The BMA sent out details of Shipman's drug abuse criminal history, also before the case was over.

Both are contempt of court - both would have led to a mistrial and release if the jury had known about them.

Mr Justice Forbes told BMA solicitors: "The outrage and horror that the public would have necessarily have felt cannot possibly be exaggerated."

The BMJ in those days presented radical material and reported the matter.

Mr Justice Forbes, the judge who presided over the case of Dr Harold Shipman, the English GP who was recently found guilty of murdering 15 of his patients, has criticised the BMA for "flagrant" contempt, which could have halted the trial. He has referred the matter to the attorney general.

Two years before the Shipman Trial, the BMA were dealing with my case. I present the documents with the most damning evidence of their attitude to whistleblowers. The other question we need to ask is this - where was Elizabeth Paice in all this?

The material below show the following

1. Document 28 cites that I was " trying to speak to Rox for sometime".

2. The entry written by Sally McGranaghan 26.01.99 states "This seems to me on the basis of the conversation with Dr Pal to be a genuine case of a young doctor who should be protected for sticking up for her rights or in the alternative perhaps she genuinely is a pain in the backside"
3. In summary, the BMA did one thing, I wrote the statement for the Trust, they edited it. They provided no legal advice at all despite me pleading for it.
4. Document 34 states " Advised that Rona Miller cd not deal with this issue as potential conflict of interest". They suggest that the representation is transferred to Manchester. I later found out they were representing my consultant at Ward 87. The representation of that consultant clearly took priority of me.

In those days, the BMA was into the diamond pill. They supported Viagra and Pfizer up to the hilt. Shame they didn't support the drugs required to save patients. I suspect the BMA committee required a little help in the bedroom.

Everyone likes real documents. I obtained them under the Data Protection Act if anyone wants to know. It was more a matter of curiosity than anything else. I wanted to see exactly how crap they had been. Of course, I am now a pain in the backside - their backside. Anyone who pays BMA subs are a fool. They are living in cuckoo land if they think the BMA will fight for them. Well, they might if the doctor is a consultant and on the BMA committee. For instance, they would represented weirdo Dr Brian Keighley who knows more about Sectioning patients than anyone else.

Please note that although they say they were legally qualified.
None of them were lawyers.