Terminating the Ceasefire

Terminating the ceasefire

It's now proving difficult to keep away from my addiction to blogging. Perhaps it is one of my coping strategies or perhaps I quite like keeping a log of the past, future and the present. Discovering this place where I am not an outcast is proving difficult :). Every whistleblower is treated like a pariah. I am no different. One of my defence reactions is to self isolate which I do with great skill. Perhaps this blog will be evidence that exhibits how difficult it is to speak publicly about very personal issues. I told a friend of mine yesterday that I didn't want to be found dead in a ditch without having written about my experiences. " Dead in a ditch" is a very entertaining phrase developed by Jen Colman. The fact that I often feel the need to run away from people is probably a product of my inability to cope with rejection/avoidance from all sectors. My tolerance level for bastards is extremely low. It would be interesting to review how many times I do close the blog and hibernate. The skill of hibernation is my talent of survival. That is probably a personality adaptation. In the year 1998-1999, I believe I was an extremely sociable person. This gradually deteriorated to being intolerant of people in general. That is not to say I am anti social but it is more than I am picky with who I spend time with. I demand higher standards. I never meet anyone unless I am of the view they are worth meeting. I have no idea whether this is a good or bad thing. I dislike tittle tattle, I dislike small talk and probably dislike those who have no empathy for others. I suspect my expectations of people are higher. It comes with the whistleblowing territory. Professionally, you understand that you can no longer trust many people. This is not about paranoia, it is more about understanding that enemies are more likely to cause you misfortune. I have my share of enemies. It is much like a collection of accessory loonies.

Anyway, one of the problems with writing blogs about whistleblowing is the fact that I find it incredibly difficult to come to terms with the dishonesty, the psychopaths and the manner in which I was treated as a whistleblower. Writing often makes me remember issues I would rather forget. When I decided to write everything down, it was a decision not taken flippantly. With this comes disadvantages eg your enemies come to understand your weaknesses. The problem with weakness is that it should never be shown when you become a whistleblower. That is probably why I am extremely good at my tough girl act. I can of course be extremely tough. You don't win or settle as many cases as I have or write the way I do without being toughened up. I am though no different than any other person. I have my bad and good days. I have my insecurities and I have the periods where I question why the past turned out the way it did and why I was never destined to walk the path of a normal person. I also question why one minute in saving a person resulted in a 10 year journey that I had not predicted.

I also resent the fact that I was purposely ostracised by the spread of ruthless defamatory rumours for many years. Mud sticks but then it has stuck for so many years that I am tired of scraping it off me time and time again. Wasn't my choice to place my head above the parapet, it just happened. In the last few days I have been in contemplation about this " whistleblower effect". Every few years, I tend to want to run away and be " normal again" if there is such a thing. Can anyone be normal again after whistleblowing? I have no idea. I have to admit, I dislike being marginalised. Perhaps I ought to get used to it as it is now happens in rapid frequency. This happens particularly with doctors who frequent a doctors only web site. Remedy UK originated from them and they deal with me at arms length. We all know that. Perhaps I should accept it. Perhaps I shouldn't have spent large amounts of time writing a piece in support of them. Afterall, why support anyone who treats you much like a germ to be picked up with kid gloves. Then I have always supported Remedy UK but the feeling has never been mutual. Then it is because they didn't listen to me in their litigation and they lost spectacularly in court.

It was sheer stupidity on their part to hire the GMC's lawyers Blackstones to represent so many vulnerable doctors. Remedy UK dislike me for being so frank but they are ingrainly naive in many aspects. Their latest effort at seeking accountability is a true pipedream because the GMC will never hold anyone accountable. Carol Black is the GMC Trustee forgodsake. There is the Tooke Report. Well, that's fine,we can all have reports. Accountability though is a different ball game and a winning court case would have gained them this. Anyway, that's all I have to say on Remedy UK. I would be grateful if they published my signature to their petition but perhaps that part of free speech is not deserved. After a long think about these issues, I think it is probably best to withdraw from a cause like Remedy UK. I am not in the mood to play their Pot Kettle Black games. So essentially, my idea of everyone supporting each other for a common cause is really more of a pipedream rather than anything else. This aspect of Remedy UK stops right here and I don't plan to discuss them again. Their arrogance and their " know it all attitude" will be their downfall in the future. Congratulations to Dr Grumble for now feeling important by being right next to Mr Famous himself Dr Hammond, Dr Grumble by the way has a website that comes up and down far more times than a bride's nightie. If anyone thinks I am unpredictable, you should read Dr G. Witchdoctor though gives him some uplifts now and then.

I suspect in the years I have been existing with post whistleblower reputation plus special effects, it becomes difficult to come to terms with people's total disrespect for your opinions [ no matter how right or justified you are]. Each time, as whistleblower, you have to prove your intelligence, you have to prove your ability and you have to prove that you know your stuff. You have to prove yourself to fellow bloggers, other doctors, journalists etc etc. Actually, I am fed up of this. Remedy UK never listened because they didn't value what I told them. To them it was some ranting from someone who ran a website that would be politically incorrect to support because their consultant support would subsequently deteriorate. Sadly, the failure to listen to this small piece of advice may have cost them a court victory. Its not difficult to get permission in a judicial review if you get the arguments right. I have just done it with the GMC. Remedy's case was excellent. Heaven knows why they allowed it to belly flop. I just think doctors deserved better.

In the last week, Simon on NHS Exposed received an email from Mark Macaskill Sunday Times Glasgow. Mark was searching for the SpR embroiled with Elizabeth Paice and Carol Black. Mark told Simon

" I would stress that I'm interested in the freedom of speech angle and would be happy to maintain the doctor's anonymity in any article we publish".

I smirked when I was forwarded this mail. Mark Macaskill, a man who cares about free speech eh. Mark Macaskill the journalist who was involved in Elderly Helped to Die, the man who promised to run a follow up to support me against the GMC. Both reporters had specifically told me that they insisted on a referral of my concerns to the GMC because it was the " right thing to do". When the GMC attempted their suppression of free speech against me, both reporters were no where to be seen. They never kept to their promise. They sold their papers, got their debate, used their whistleblower then went off into the sunset. Mark was after the identity of our suspended doctor in Scotland. We refused to give it to him. Why should we? So that he can go and ruin some other poor doctors' career while selling papers.

No one is young, naive and trusting anymore. No one should trust Mark Macaskill or Jon Ungoed Thomas. Journalists spend their lives holding doctors accountable yet these two journalists had no scrupples and were quite happy to allow me to face the lions at the GMC alone. The most amusing part was their " I've lost the tape recordings of our conversations" when I wanted to present them to the General Medical Council. They wanted to write a post Shipman spin article. I wanted to present a junior doctors rights article. The piece was spun into a "doctors killing elderly patients" story when I whistleblew system failures. The person who had to tolerate the abuse and insults from the GMC regarding this article was me. The journalists were gone, everyone was gone. I faced it alone. I won that argument but it was tough to win. It is a great irony that I have the judgment that proves that the GMC acts like a communist regime but no medical journal will feature it. So, I feature it. That's why I created NHS Exposed, because no one wanted to feature what was important and what I wanted to say.

There are a number of coincidences that have occurred related to me lately. The issues with Neil Bacon and iwantgreatcare.org, the issues with Elizabeth Paice and now a blast from the past in the form of Mark Macaskill. Perhaps the past revolves and returns every ten years. As our webmaster pointed out, times are different now. Times are changing and perhaps all our ideas will become more accepted. We were ahead of our time when NHS Exposed was set up in the year 2000. It did well to gain the recognition it did despite a boycott from most publications and newspapers who refused our adverts and our links. I am though pleased it lists well, is highly popular and am grateful that the Times recognised it in the top 50 websites next to Dr Crippen. It was all set up with £10 initially and didn't do badly. All the credit goes to our hardworking webmaster James Landon. I know it isn't known in the medical profession but the website is known to the public! :). Not bad for a pariah and a outcast :) although I am grateful for the fragments of kindness from both Witchdoctor and Jobbing Doctor. Whoever they are, I shouldn't desert them in their quest for a better future. Afterall, perhaps better futures are built by teamwork.

Basically, I am back :).

Email Exchanges.

----- Original Message -----
From: Rita Pal
To: Macaskill, Mark
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 1:09 PM Subject:

Re: Sunday Times Mark

Simon sent me your email. I don't believe you have ever been interested in free speech. You certainly were not interested when the GMC harassed me after I whistleblew in the Sunday Times. I believe the judge called the GMC a " totalitarian regime". I wonder where the Sunday Times was when that judgment came out? Where was the Sunday Times when the 2001 Report from Stoke on Trent came out in 2005, no where again. So, the various promises [ and I still have you on tape with those promises] you made about follow ups were really empty promises weren't they?

Finally, as you and Jon both know - it was the bright idea of both of you to refer the issues to the GMC. I begged you both at the time that I would be harassed [ as all whistleblowers have]. You and Jon though insisted and promised to follow the story up. One of the criteria of publication was that I report the matter to the GMC. I did report it to the GMC. Having had that bright idea, you left me to face the music without any backup. To make matters worse, you destroyed the tapes you recorded.

I have no problems with you - but it would be good for you to simply stick to who you are - a journalist who really doesn't give a damn what happens to his sources just as long the story sells papers. That appears to be the conclusion. To pretend to be anyone different and to purport to be interested in free speech is unacceptable.

After the impact to my life [ which I wouldn't have minded had those journalists who promised to follow up the story kept their word], do you honestly think I am going to allow the doctor in Scotland to be faced with the same harassment as a result of publicity. Anonymity does not matter when the dean herself knows who he is. I have the leading cases in GMC jurisprudence having sued them under the Human Rights Act once and successfully settled it. And again - the first judicial review by a doctor to go to hearing since the GMC's inception. The first case was landmark case law and the second one is the same. These are all issues of suppression of free speech. But then you aren't listening anymore - because these days, I am no longer headline news. There is of course no point in holding these issues against you after so many years because you are who you are.

As a journalist you spend your days holding people accountable, yet you made a promise to me and you never kept it - that shows the value of your words. If I as a doctor broke my promise to anyone, I am sure newspapers would question my conduct etc etc. If I lied, the same newspapers would hold me accountable. To promise to run a follow up and then not run it - is effectively lying isn't it Mark. It is simply a matter of perspective. I will leave this with you to think about over lunch or dinner. You may be many things Mark - you are a good journalist, a excellent investigator, fairly good looking, well dressed but you don't have what matters in the world - that is the level of integrity that you demand of all doctors in the UK. Finally, if I trusted you to protect my colleague, you would have his name. The bottom-line is this - given the history above, do you expect any doctor to trust the Sunday Times?

All the best

Rita

----- Original Message -----
From: Macaskill, Mark
To: editor@nhsexposed.com
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 1:27
PM Subject: Sunday Times

Hi Simon

Do you happen to know the name of the junior doctor suspended over the comments posted online about Carol Black? And what exactly was said? I'm a staff writer with the Sunday Times in Glasgow and am considering covering the episode in this week's edition. I would need to contact the individual involved and your help would be appreciated,

best

Mark Macaskill
Home News 0141 420 5339
t 0141 420 5262
f 07813 789 822