Scratching the GMC's Back

Monkey Business at the GMC

Summary of the case

I am still pissed off with Elizabeth Paice who has been flaunting Good Medical Practice as an excuse for her shitty behaviour. Abusing her power because there is no one to hold her accountable - apart from the internet that is. Someone should have a look at the London Deanery's collection of documents. There is a document on harassment and bullying written by Paice herself. The other interesting issue is that the London Deanery told me that the internal complaints procedure could not be instigated as there was a GMC complaint. This is what he said

"Thank you for bringing this complaint to our attention. As this matter has been raised with the GMC, it is now being considered outside of our internal complaints system".

I subsequently asked for the complaints procedure and requested the section where it stated that an internal complaint was specifically prohibited. The response has not been forthcoming. So, I went over to the London Deanery's website and looked at their complaints procedure . Clearly Tony Americano, side kick to Prof Paice had that specific section written there in invisble ink. There is nothing to prevent a internal complaint apart from the fact that Paice and Americano are being obstructive. Anyway, this is the complaints form and when I have a min, I am going to complete it.

Dr Rant who is getting more attractive by the day with his use of expletives is astute enough to notice Liz's behaviour. I thought I would pick up on the dishonesty point. The London Deanery can be seen to be misleading the public on a number of issues probably because they are now up shit creek without a paddle.

Lets look at Rule 56 of GMP

It states

" Probity means being honest and trustworthy, and acting with integrity; this is at the heart of medical professionalism".

So far this is what the arch fibber of London Deanery told the world at large.

She pointed out that guidelines drawn up by the General Medical Council (GMC) included a section on treating colleagues with respect.

"No one wishes to curtail doctors' right to free speech about issues that they feel strongly about," Professor Paice continued. "But it is right, just as in any other walk of life, that they do so without recourse to vicious personal attacks."

1. Carol Black has not come out and told any of us that she felt it was a personal attack.
2. Every other normal person asks a lawyer to deal with matters they have a problem with through the courts. That is why we have courts.
3. No other profession in the UK uses a personal comment on a internet forum against a person's job, only Professor Paice does.
4. There is some misunderstanding in the blogsphere that Carol Black is Scot Jr's boss or manager. She isn't. She is just a government adviser. It is a bit like criticising the Prime Minister and getting fired or suspended for it. If everyone who swore at Gordon Brown got fired or suspended, there would be no workforce in the UK.

Following the above, an additional issue on dishonesty was sent to the GMC. This is the sequence of events.

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

From: Rita Pal

To: Jackie Smith (020 7189 5132)

Cc: GCatto@gmc-uk.org ; webmaster@nhsexposed.com

Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 3:33 PM

Subject: Further information

Dear Jackie

I have written a short piece on Elizabeth Paice http://nhsexposedblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/elizabeth-paice-gillian-needham-and.html

The extra material ie narrative can be ignored but the arguments related to misleading the public regarding the GMC guidance stand.

Essentially, this is a second complaint based on Rule 56 and Rule 57 of Good Medical Practice .The summary of the allegation is that Elizabeth Paice holds a high position in the medical profession, she should know that Good Medical Practice [ and the case law around it] centres around the conduct of a doctor towards colleagues working with them and the effect on patient care. She has therefore purposely been dishonest when presenting the GMP guidance to the Inverness Courier and again can be seen to be misleading the public. I make this complaint in combination with the GMC guidance related to the Management Guidance.

Finally, please confirm in writing whether Carol Black has agreed to Elizabeth Paice's complaint against xxxxxxx

Regards

Dr Rita Pal

-------------------------

Then a interview after the above shows as follows ;-

A spokeswoman for the London Deanery said today: “From our point of view it was a very minor incident. [Professor Paice] acted in accordance with the General Medical Council’s good practice guidance.”

The spokeswoman said Paice made no recommendation as to how the Highland Deanery should react to Dr Scot Jr’s posting, and speculated that there may be more to the suspension than publicly known.

So until the Register piece today, Paice was doing all her own interviews. She now delegates her defence to her spokesperson. That is an amazing coincidence. Her PR person does not refer to the specific GMP rule she is reliant on :). This has the added effect of the public thinking that the London Deanery must know their stuff. Being economical with the truth has its advantages of persuading the public. Which member of the public would seek to question the London Deanery on what rule of the GMP they are reliant on? These gloss over statements are simply typical of London Deanery. This Public Relations escapade is going all wrong of course. The London Deanery PR is a spin machine. It is there to save their Bacon. Talking of Bacon, why hasn't anyone placed these lot on iwantgreatcare.org?

At present, I have no doubt that the GMC are trying to throw the complaint against Paice and Needham out. After all, both have worked with the GMC in the past. The very fact that Paice keeps relying on the GMC regulations is because she knows they have scratched each others backs for many years.