The Shark's Advice "Hopefully that will have the desired effect and make her go away"

Legal Advice to the London Deanery/Prof Brenton

To continue the tale of hag towers, we need to review the letter that was sent from John Hull of Denton Wilde and Sapte to Prof Brenton [University College London].

Brenton was no doubt acting on behalf of Prof Paice and her fellow hags. I have no doubts that a lot more went on between Paice, Moss,Brenton and the powers that be. Their job was to silence me and ensure a tight grip. That is why their focus was on me and not the accountability of Ward 87.

All three sought to " cover up" the disastrous issues on Ward 87. At least Brenton did not want me knowing his views on the substandard care. They also sought to support their fellow patient killers over at Ward 87. What else can we call them but patient killers? Isn't that what the doctors responsible for Ward 87 were? I suppose we could be politically correct about it and use more tame words but what would be the point? We could skirt around and be polite about death. Isn't that what the rest of the top level professionals do?

The advice above shows the London Deanery engaging in purposeful concealment and obstructing any path of accountability. My request to Brenton was very simple. The old fool could not even accede to this simple request for personal data. Of course, in the end Brenton taught me clinical medicine but over the years, I found him to be a failure as a person. David P Brenton is now quietly retired, takes no responsibility for this fiasco and cares nothing for what happened. To Brenton, it is the decorum that matters - not the fact that patients died. I discovered that in the end. I also discovered that he didn't fully believe me. He didn't even fully believe the 2001 report. In fact, he believed polite lady like behaviour was more important than patient safety. This is the reason why he sought to obstruct my path, he sought to make my journey more and more difficult hoping I would essentially give up. As for careers advice, none of them offered any.

I suspect the same can be said for Donald Irvine. In their well brought up English accents, they look down on the rest of us and " poo poo" the "behaviour" but say nothing of the patient lives that were paid because none of them bothered to lift a finger to assist. I wonder if their mind's change the older they get and the more closer they are to their graves. I wonder if this lethargy to death improves. The problem with older doctors is that they have accepted negligence as the norm in the NHS. This is also why they feel everyone else should overlook it because it has been done for decades. This is why they also engage in covering up controversial issues. Injustice becomes accepted behaviour. This is why the seniors need to bring us juniors into line to "accept injustice". Those of us who don't accept the dark side as they have done are termed "difficult personalities".

Accountability is not in their blood, it never has been in their blood. That is the reason David Brenton and his hags decided to take legal advice on what was a very simple request. This was because David Brenton didn't want to be embroiled. Didn't want to support one of his students. He wanted to wash his hands of the matter and remain a coward much like the rest of his colleagues.

This was a request covered by the Data Protection Act 1998. The letter was written in the year 2000 and the lawyers were aware that I was entitled to my personal file. They sought to mislead me. The advice above is contrary to the Data Protection Act 1998 showing that reputable law firms engage in the path of the dark side.

It is one of my favourite letters because it shows us all what conceited cold hearted people, lawyers can be. They can even advise that the Deanery deny basic documentation to a victim with the sole purpose of obstructing justice. In my previous posting, I did wait for Brenton to retire and approached the Information Controller directly. The documents that Brenton had concealed from me were released a few years later. I suspect it was a fairly underhanded under the radar approach but it worked.

My favourite sentence is this

"In the circumstances therefore and particularly given Dr Pal's apparent desire to publicise information emanating from others on her website, my advice is that Professor Brenton write to Dr Pal declining to provide a statement and declining, on the basis of other overriding duties I have mentioned, to provide documents to her. Hopefully that will have the desired effect and make her go away"

So I made a complaint to the eminent law firm while citing that the firm had denied me essential documentation I was entitled to. This unethical behaviour of a law firm which boasts as follows

"Denton Wilde Sapte is an international law firm with over 600 lawyers and a network of offices and associated offices spanning the UK, Europe, Middle East, CIS and Africa"

This was their response.

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

From: "Cleaveland, Helen" <helen.cleaveland@dentonwildesapte.com>

To: "Rita Pal" <ritapal@poetess.fsnet.co.uk>

Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 3:03 PM

Subject: Complaint relating to John Hull

Dear Dr. Pal,
I have now conducted a detailed investigation of the complaint you made on 14 May 2005.
1. The first issue I considered was whether your complaint was a legitimate basis for complaint under the firm's complaints procedure. I have concluded that, if a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 has taken place as a result of advice given by this firm, as you allege, the appropriate remedy is a claim under that legislation. Our complaints procedure is not designed as a substitute for or supplement to third party statutory or other legal rights against our clients. Accordingly I have concluded that the basis of your complaint is not valid.
2. Nonetheless, one of the objectives of our complaints procedure is to enable quality control checks to be carried out where concerns have been expressed. Accordingly, as your complaint alleges that incorrect advice has been provided by this firm (albeit not to you), I concluded that the allegation that the advice was incorrect should be investigated as part of our internal quality control process.
3. I have therefore examined the advice given and the context in which the advice was given. I have concluded that the advice given was neither incorrect nor inappropriate and that the complaint is not justified. I cannot give you any further details on the background to my conclusion as, to do so, would breach client confidentiality.
Kind regards,
Helen Cleaveland

Lots of Fins but Lacking in Intellect.
At £350 plus VAT per hour, everyone expects better

For avoidance of doubt, the material presented on this website is simply a product of my investigations over the years. The investigations have not been obsessional but it often entertains me intellectually to watch the way law firms behave. I also find it highly entertaining to establish that there is actually no accountability in the NHS.

Finally, I did get one up on John Hull - he may have been clever - but just not clever enough to be a step ahead of me. So essentially, even with his sharp suit, his fat pay cheques, his conceited behaviour and his posturing, he still wasn't able to prevent me from uncovering the document I needed. Amazing what can be uncovered when no one is looking :).

Amazing silence isn't there? All these defence unions visiting the website :) and none of them have a thing to say.

Cat got your tongue Prof Paice? Has anyone got anything to say now? Of course, not.