London Deanery at the Full MoonThere are many who have been contemplating the reasons for Prof Paice's aberrant behaviour in reporting Dr Scot Jnr to the Highland Deanery for one post. I have this theory. I have detailed the fact that Paice is rather similar to a wolf in sheep's clothing. Of late, everyone has noted the cycle of the full moon. Indeed, I was in the garden watching the large full moon last night and contemplating the aberrant behaviour patterns of people generally during such periods. It has been established that people behave more aggressively during the full moon.
In January 2007, the Independent reported "According to new research, the Moon affects not only the tides of the oceans but also people, producing a range of symptoms from flare-ups of gout to bladder problems. It may even lie behind the causes of car crashes and affect people's hormonal balances"
The psychiatrist, Glenn Wilson, found that the full moon has been portrayed in folklore and legends for centuries as cause for celebration, particularly in the times before modern lighting.
"There is good reason to believe that people's personalities do change around the time of the full moon, not because of any astronomical force, but because it creates the optimum lighting conditions for feeling carefree and mischievous," Wilson told the paper.
The theory related to menstrual cycles has been discussed in detail by Simon J Ford of NHS Exposed. His piece The Rocky Menopause Road was insightful. Here we see that the full moon can affect the menstrual cycle :-
This behaviour pattern has occurred during August 2008-September 2008. We observe the same dates for this case. This was a case where Paice was proven to be wrong again.
I quote from the Judgment.
6. Evidence on behalf of the Respondents was given by Dr Seeley, formerly dean of Postgraduate Medicine in the Kent, Surrey & Sussex Deanery, Mr Paterson, consultant surgeon and programme director of the South‑West Thames Specialist Registrar Rotation, Mr Loveland, currently head of Post‑qualification Learning and Continuing Professional Development in the Department of Health, Mr Harrison, associate postgraduate dean for the Kent, Surrey & Sussex Postgraduate Medical Deanery, Mr Sacks, consultant surgeon, Dr Hicks, postgraduate dean director of the Kent, Surrey & Sussex Deanery, and Professor Paice, dean director of the London Department of Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education.
58. On 18 July, the Applicant wrote to Professor Paice, asking if she was the correct person to investigate his claim that he had been treated unfairly during his surgical training. Dr Paice replied that she was the correct person to investigate his claim, which should be presented in writing. The Applicant wrote to Dr Paice on 28 July, setting out his complaint, including his correspondence with Dr Hicks. Dr Paice arranged to meet the Applicant on 14 August. However, shortly before the meeting was due to take place, Dr Paice had reason to believe that the Applicant had presented a complaint about the matter in issue to the Employment Tribunal. In fact he had not. She sent him an e‑mail on 13 August, explaining that when she agreed to meet him she was unaware that he had presented a complaint to the Tribunal. She expressed her view that, as the complaints were being dealt with through the Employment Tribunal process, she would have nothing to add other than a willingness to listen. The Applicant replied that the Tribunal did not have tile power to recommend him for CCST or resolve his training situation. He said that only Dr Paice could resolve those matters. He said that any complaint to the Tribunal should not be allowed to get in the way of the exercise of her authority. Dr Paice replied that she was happy to meet the Applicant, and the meeting took place on 14 August. The Applicant presented his case to Dr Paice and her colleague Mr Orton, referring in particular to the estimated CCST date of 19 April 1997 on RITA Form A.
59 Professor Paice considered the matter and sent the Applicant her decision in a letter dated 6 September. She informed him that she had examined his case to see if he had been treated in the same way as a trainee in the North‑Thames Region would have been treated during the period of transition. Professor Paice had supervised the transition process in North‑Thames,
60 Professor Paice wrote:‑
"When you presented your case to us, you emphasised that you had been given an estimated CCST date of April 1997 and argued that therefore your permit‑free training time, which took you to that date, should have been sufficient to put you in Type 1 training. Certainly your Form A did give an estimated CCST date of April 1997. However, I note from your file and from your letter to Hugh Seeley of 28 June 2001, that you and your trainers classified you as being in Year 4 in April 1997. This is confirmed 'in subsequent correspondence where you are described as being in Year 5 in April 1998. Clearly the estimated CCST date of April 1997 was incorrect. As such you did not have enough permit‑free training time to take you through to CCST.
Your case was dealt with in exactly the way it would have been had you been a trainee in North Thames at the time. I cannot see any evidence of unfair treatment. We had a number of trainees in this position, and gave them the very strong advice to apply in open competition for Type 1 training, ..."
61. The Applicant replied on 25 September, expressing his surprise at Dr Paice's assertion that the CCST date of April 1997 was clearly incorrect. She replied on 9 October as follows:‑
"As you were in Type 2 training there was no CCST date. That the originally estimated CCST date of April 1997 was incorrect is demonstrated by your mutually agreed identification of your training level as Year 4, in a six‑your programme.
In summary having read through your file with some care I concluded that you were dealt with by South Thames Deanery exactly as you would have been by North Thames Deanery, or any other deanery in the country. I am sorry that you find this conclusion disappointing."
62. In the course of preparing this case for hearing, the Applicant obtained various documents from the Royal College of Surgeons, including parts of a report written following the inspection by Mr Sacks and his colleagues in February 1996. Large parts of that report were missing, including a table of specialist registrars in higher surgical training. The Applicant also obtained documents from the Royal College of Surgeon's database where the Applicant is referred to as a Type 1 trainee.
The finding in this case was the doctor was indirectly and directly discriminated against. This proves that Prof Paice was indeed WRONG again. This shows again that Professor Paice lacked insight during the same time frame.
Again we look at the date of this letter related to Mr Bhadra
10th August - Cycle of the Full Moon??
In January 2007, the Independent reported "According to new research, the Moon affects not only the tides of the oceans but also people, producing a range of symptoms from flare-ups of gout to bladder problems. It may even lie behind the causes of car crashes and affect people's hormonal balances"
The psychiatrist, Glenn Wilson, found that the full moon has been portrayed in folklore and legends for centuries as cause for celebration, particularly in the times before modern lighting.
"There is good reason to believe that people's personalities do change around the time of the full moon, not because of any astronomical force, but because it creates the optimum lighting conditions for feeling carefree and mischievous," Wilson told the paper.
The theory related to menstrual cycles has been discussed in detail by Simon J Ford of NHS Exposed. His piece The Rocky Menopause Road was insightful. Here we see that the full moon can affect the menstrual cycle :-
Human beings are affected by the moon. Women especially are affected by the moon and their menstrual cycle is intimately linked to this celestial body.
The moon:
- regulates your menstrual cycle,
- can trigger ovulation and fertile times,
- affects your emotions and
- affects the way people behave and view the world.
This behaviour pattern has occurred during August 2008-September 2008. We observe the same dates for this case. This was a case where Paice was proven to be wrong again.
I quote from the Judgment.
6. Evidence on behalf of the Respondents was given by Dr Seeley, formerly dean of Postgraduate Medicine in the Kent, Surrey & Sussex Deanery, Mr Paterson, consultant surgeon and programme director of the South‑West Thames Specialist Registrar Rotation, Mr Loveland, currently head of Post‑qualification Learning and Continuing Professional Development in the Department of Health, Mr Harrison, associate postgraduate dean for the Kent, Surrey & Sussex Postgraduate Medical Deanery, Mr Sacks, consultant surgeon, Dr Hicks, postgraduate dean director of the Kent, Surrey & Sussex Deanery, and Professor Paice, dean director of the London Department of Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education.
58. On 18 July, the Applicant wrote to Professor Paice, asking if she was the correct person to investigate his claim that he had been treated unfairly during his surgical training. Dr Paice replied that she was the correct person to investigate his claim, which should be presented in writing. The Applicant wrote to Dr Paice on 28 July, setting out his complaint, including his correspondence with Dr Hicks. Dr Paice arranged to meet the Applicant on 14 August. However, shortly before the meeting was due to take place, Dr Paice had reason to believe that the Applicant had presented a complaint about the matter in issue to the Employment Tribunal. In fact he had not. She sent him an e‑mail on 13 August, explaining that when she agreed to meet him she was unaware that he had presented a complaint to the Tribunal. She expressed her view that, as the complaints were being dealt with through the Employment Tribunal process, she would have nothing to add other than a willingness to listen. The Applicant replied that the Tribunal did not have tile power to recommend him for CCST or resolve his training situation. He said that only Dr Paice could resolve those matters. He said that any complaint to the Tribunal should not be allowed to get in the way of the exercise of her authority. Dr Paice replied that she was happy to meet the Applicant, and the meeting took place on 14 August. The Applicant presented his case to Dr Paice and her colleague Mr Orton, referring in particular to the estimated CCST date of 19 April 1997 on RITA Form A.
59 Professor Paice considered the matter and sent the Applicant her decision in a letter dated 6 September. She informed him that she had examined his case to see if he had been treated in the same way as a trainee in the North‑Thames Region would have been treated during the period of transition. Professor Paice had supervised the transition process in North‑Thames,
60 Professor Paice wrote:‑
"When you presented your case to us, you emphasised that you had been given an estimated CCST date of April 1997 and argued that therefore your permit‑free training time, which took you to that date, should have been sufficient to put you in Type 1 training. Certainly your Form A did give an estimated CCST date of April 1997. However, I note from your file and from your letter to Hugh Seeley of 28 June 2001, that you and your trainers classified you as being in Year 4 in April 1997. This is confirmed 'in subsequent correspondence where you are described as being in Year 5 in April 1998. Clearly the estimated CCST date of April 1997 was incorrect. As such you did not have enough permit‑free training time to take you through to CCST.
Your case was dealt with in exactly the way it would have been had you been a trainee in North Thames at the time. I cannot see any evidence of unfair treatment. We had a number of trainees in this position, and gave them the very strong advice to apply in open competition for Type 1 training, ..."
61. The Applicant replied on 25 September, expressing his surprise at Dr Paice's assertion that the CCST date of April 1997 was clearly incorrect. She replied on 9 October as follows:‑
"As you were in Type 2 training there was no CCST date. That the originally estimated CCST date of April 1997 was incorrect is demonstrated by your mutually agreed identification of your training level as Year 4, in a six‑your programme.
In summary having read through your file with some care I concluded that you were dealt with by South Thames Deanery exactly as you would have been by North Thames Deanery, or any other deanery in the country. I am sorry that you find this conclusion disappointing."
62. In the course of preparing this case for hearing, the Applicant obtained various documents from the Royal College of Surgeons, including parts of a report written following the inspection by Mr Sacks and his colleagues in February 1996. Large parts of that report were missing, including a table of specialist registrars in higher surgical training. The Applicant also obtained documents from the Royal College of Surgeon's database where the Applicant is referred to as a Type 1 trainee.
The finding in this case was the doctor was indirectly and directly discriminated against. This proves that Prof Paice was indeed WRONG again. This shows again that Professor Paice lacked insight during the same time frame.
Again we look at the date of this letter related to Mr Bhadra
10th August - Cycle of the Full Moon?? This therefore means that in each case here, Professor Paice's behaviour has become erratic and out of the ordinary. She has either made a wrong judgment or she has been unduly oppressive. My view is that someone should look into the nature of this erratic, irrational behaviour. It may have something to do with increasing stress during those periods. Of course, even if Professor Paice's behaviour was erratic, irrational, lacking in insight, the GMC would not rule that she had an attitudinal problem. We also have to look at why Professor Paice is the Dean that doctors are most likely to litigate against.
We note that all three incidents [Bhadra, Jhadav and Scot Jnr] occurred during the same period of the year.
The impact of the full moon cycle cannot be ruled out of course :).
We note that all three incidents [Bhadra, Jhadav and Scot Jnr] occurred during the same period of the year.
The impact of the full moon cycle cannot be ruled out of course :).
0 comments:
Post a Comment