Dr Scot Jnr and Dr India

Dr Chris Kelly [ GMC Assessor] would say that because
Gandhi fought for his rights and argued with
many people, he may have had a personality disorder.

"An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied
propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it".

Mohandas K Gandhi.

Apologies for the shut blog this week. I was getting a bit tired of GMC observers prowling around like a bunch of obsessive gremlins. Our servers were filled with them. Their searches were "Needham, Pal, Paice" and "Paice, Pal, Needham". You would think that they had better things to do.

In the week I have been gone, the GMC have suspended Dr Adam Osborne. A bit mean I thought. Even those who end the lives of patients don't get that sort of sanction. An example is the Halton Hospital Trio. No suspensions were placed on Manchester Infirmary Radiologist Dr Gerry Murphy. Gerry Murphy though is happy working while being charged at the GMC.

Secondly, I see Dr Scot Jnr has come out of wearing a kilt and commented in the Sunday Mail. Remedy UK and I are quoted there. I should actually fluff my feathers really. Cripes, I suppose when I do stop aiming to be a airhead, I can be actually be quite intelligent really. Amazing!

In the meantime, Dr Chris Kelly and mates are currently behaving unfairly. Nothing new at GMC towers then. Must be peachy to be a GMC Assessor and trampling all over people's rights.

Blake Dobson "clearly however if you are distressed by the content of a memo then I apologise on behalf of the Fitness to Practise Directorate"

Rentaghost. Fitness to Practise Directorate. GMC Towers

The General Medical Council finally dug out a lengthy email written to me in 2004 prior to the court hearing.

-----Original Message----- From:
Blake Dobson (0161 923 6462)
Sent: 30 Apr 2004 12:18
To: 'Rita Pal' Cc: Neil Marshall (020 7915 3540); Neil McCabe (0161 923 6421) Subject:
RE: Matters

"Whilst I appreciate that you disagree strongly with the wording of the memo from Mr Lynn to the health screener it does not in my opinion suggest any maliciousness on the part of the GMC, or its' apology. Clearly however if you are distressed by the content of a memo then I apologise on behalf of the Fitness to Practise Directorate"

Blake Dobson

This was a amusing email because it had Blake Dobson who is head honcho and actually a terribly nice guy, apologising on behalf of the Fitness to Practise Directorate GMC Towers. Apologies like these are rare and therefore should be framed. This is of course the second apology from GMC Towers.

The background of the issue concerns a number of ratty, intemperate letters I had written to them severely criticising the GMC in the year 2000. The sentiments would be later reflected in the Dame Janet Smith Shipman Inquiry. Of course, Dame Janet Smith would never have been considered to be potentially mentally ill because she has all the airs and graces of a high class English socialite. I considered the attack on my letters to be a direct attack on my identity as a British Asian. The GMC have no insight into this of course.

These ratty letters were construed as "potential mental illness". The problem with assessing the letters of someone is that you often get it wrong. It becomes even more embarrassing for them when someone like me demands to know why mentally ill doctors are not subjected to discreet inquiries, and their faces redden further when you parade a letter from the Royal College of Psychiatrists . Yes, I obtained the letter from the Royal College of Psychiatrists and wafted it in front of the GMC and I keep wafting it has time floats on.

Of course, no one thinks the great and good Royal College of Psychiatrists would have ever written such a letter IF they knew it was going to be used for the purposes of kicking the GMC up the arse in the best possibly way. Afterall, this is the Royal College of Psychiatrists who boasts about their Anti Stigma Campaign but allows their members to stigmatise doctors at the GMC. Four years on and the GMC are still shoving doctors through psychiatric assessments for ratty emails and letters. Forget ethnic diversity, forget the fact that most of the ethnic minority doctors are severely pissed off with the manner in which they are treated by GMC Towers.

I am of course not the first person to have been subjected to this sort of totalitarian regime behaviour. I speak of this four years later because it is still shocking to me that the GMC would resort to such levels of behaviour and actually have no insight into their own irrationality. Of course, as the years have gone by, I have discovered that the GMC will effectively stoop to any level depending on how much they dislike the doctor.

After getting it wrong, you often have to hide under the table while the courts take a rolled up newspaper and repeatedly hits you. This is what happened to the GMC in 2004. The GMC took a hard battering, probably due to the arguments I had created in advance. I suspect it was my way of seeking some equality. At the previous hearing the GMC had crowed that I did not need legal representation, that I could not afford legal representation and that I had a hopeless case. Of course, they were wrong but they are always wrong, they will always be wrong.

Their legal representative Jane Collier had discovered to her horror that Blake Dobson had apologised to me. We [ my legal representatives] had actually decided at the time not to show the courts this apology to the courts. Collier was not to know this and ran into court, flapping the copies of emails and proclaiming "That is Mr Dobson's personal opinion with hindsight but it does not affect our case". She went onto make it clear that this email was not an apology from her client but JUST a personal opinion of Blake Dobson. And so, they dug themselves deeper into a legal hole because the judge would not have even known about the apology had it not been for their representatives disclosing the email. So not only had they written some disastrous offensive memos, they admitted to apologising for them as well. This did not do the GMC's case much good. Indeed, it was one of the reasons why they spectacularly failed in court.

It is very true the through the entire court shenanigans, I sat there calmly reading my Hello magazine and wondered why a regulatory body was so incompetent and obtuse. Of course, if I had known that as a medical student, I would have gone to Australia. Anyhow, I was here and in the court doodling on a small piece of paper. We had all coined the term " windybag" for the Jane Collier because of the amount of hot air that floated in court. Robert Jay QC munched on his chocolates and exclaimed " She does lack lustre". Of course, she did, that is why the GMC hired her. Actually, credit to Jane Collier, she is actually by Lord Lester's own admission a nice lady and a very good barrister. It is simply that she had us as her opposition - yes, it was the GMC Slayers - four of us accompanied by a large number of women's magazines, huge levels of chocolates who were a group of grubby commoners who sat back and mocked the afflicted at every chance we got. Of course, we were not supposed to win because commoners apparently don't win - but we had a QC, we had chocolate, we had a brain and on that day we were faster than Jane Collier. The GMC just have to accept that money can't buy them public love :) or court wins.

"Dobbin"

Blake Dobson is affectionately known as Dobbin to us doctors. For all those who don't know who Dobbin is, he is the panto mine horse in the children's TV Programme that I used to watch called Rentaghost. Dobbin is a rather cute character who trots around being nice. Blake did me and him a favour by apologising. It kind of took the edge off my anger - only slightly though. I like Blake though and I think he is fair to doctors in general. At present, I am attempting to negotiate the creation of a protocol for the assessment of "doctors writings". I doubt he will bite at this effort to progress the GMC forward but you never know.

While I sat in that court room, many ideas flitted across my mind. Dobbin was of course the tame nicer guy in contrast with Grotbags, the witch formally known as Sarah Bedwell. Many doctors who have gone down the GMC route have come across this woman. Only 3 days ago, I noted that she was sent the GMC whistleblowing protocol some years ago - this was a document sported in the Shipman Inquiry. Clearly, she failed to read it when assessing my case. Then Fedwell fails to read most things probably because she is too busy with her fingers in the cookie pot.

Sarah Bedwell Before The Makeover
Hanging on Tightly to Finlay Scott,
the white Scottish Terrier

After the Makeover

There was a startling similarity between Grotbags and Sarah Bedwell at the GMC. At least the cardies were similar anyway. Those those who don't know, Bedwell is known affectionately known as Fedwell due to the typographical error we must all accidentally make while writing about her. She is famed for her vintage old style Cardies. Personally, I find the startling similarity between her and Linda Blair disturbing. The Devil may wear Prada but Fedwell definitely wears BHS.

For the record, there is no exorcism recipe for GMC Towers.

Thicker than a Hoodie

The Register today pointed out what we all knew. MPs know jackschitt about the internet.

The Register stated

"The times, they may be changing on the internet, but if our Parliament has anything to do with it, that change is unlikely to be for the better. The problem is that far too many MPs not only don’t get it when it comes to the net, they actively bask in their ignorance of new technology.

Two outwardly unconnected stories show how. This week, the stiff-collar brigade were out in force, exerting pressure on MP’s to tone down their blogs. The authorities have taken exception to some of the language used which, they feel, breaches Parliamentary etiquette.

So Paul Flynn MP has been asked to remove comments about fellow MPs Peter Hain and Lembit Opik. He compared Hain to a Star Trek character "who liquefies at the end of each day and sleeps in a bucket to emerge in another chosen shape the following morning". Mr Opik is merely a “clown” or a “turkey”

Meanwhile, last week’s Westminster Hall Debate on the Report on Harmful Content on the Internet, released earlier this year by the Select Committee for Culture, Media and Sport was chock-full of parliamentary courtesy.

Middle-aged speaker after middle-aged dinosaur lumbered up to make the same quaintly prehistoric self-deprecating joke about their technological incompetence and how little experience they had of the internet or computer gaming.

And these people plan on legislating on the internet :).

Whistleblowers in Child Protection

Wales on Line asks where the whistleblowers are in cases like Child P. Panorama moaned about how Child P was not protected. The truth of the matter is that both these media outlets have done more to damage child protection services than your average child abuser.

Who is the whistleblower in Child Protection? Well, David Southall has been the whistleblower for years. Has anyone listened? Of course, not. Not surprised that he has trotted over to Gambia and dumped England.

So here was his warning about child protection. When he invented Covert Surveillance to catch child abusers, the media listened to the the campaigners against child protection and undermined the methodology that resulted in maximum convictions.

So, lets be clear on this - had Covert Surveillance been implemented on Child P's mother, Child P may not be dead today. Thats a fact.

Child P is dead due to a number of reasons. There is system failure, there is also the impact of a anti child protection stance. The media have never understood the work of the leaders in child protection nor have they appreciated the nature of child abuse.

It is strange that the whistleblower who raised the actual concerns about the disaster about to hit children is now sidelined by the media. Are they embarrassed because they did not listen to him?

It is though a great shame that a whistleblower like David Southall supported by a limp, gutless campaign group who has made no decent statement in the wake of the Child P case. PACA is an group interested in their own welfare, who use child protection has a ruse in its armoury. A gaggle of men who hide behind each other and fear one woman. According to Dr Nigel Speight, it is apparently "Safety In Numbers". It is of course the misfortune of those who suffer from child abuse that the only medical campaign group that purports to support them, uses the plight of children to protect themselves against the wrath of the GMC. To put it another way, if this group was not "up shit creek" without a paddle by way of GMC Towers, it would never have been set up. It would never have been set up just to protect children.

Those who suffer in silence, those who are abused, those who have no voice are the most unfortunate in this country. This is because selfish human behaviour uses them as a protective shield against the GMC. The media does not take the time to understand their plight but listens to those who have the biggest mouths, who crow the most and who advertise their suffering as the " wrongly accused". No one listens to those who suffer in silence. That is a fact of the selfish and uncaring society we live in.

Hot Muffins

Hot

I think all female whistleblowers should have a distraction strategy. In my case, I have always had a soft spot for good looking men. Everyone knows that and its no secret. This is not because I am a weak, frail whistleblower with no self control. It is simply that I think looking at the horizon is interesting and pleasant. It also makes us all believe that men are not the cads they finally turn out to be. I think most men are better at fantasy level than reality levels. [apart from my own man of course - I have to write that because of the love contract :)]. This is what I always find at the Royal Courts of Justice. Nice looking barristers, until you actually go and speak to them :). It is true, I have shamelessly dropped my papers hoping that some poor defenceless tall dark haired barrister would pick them up for me. And they do :).

Those days though have passed as have the days when I found surgeons rather sexy. Actually, all surgeons are sexy by default. Something to do with their hands I believe.

Of late, I have been to see Quantum of Solace. I think Bond is great normally but the last film was better. This one was a bit two dimensional. Daniel Craig played the half wounded, moody James Bond. You essentially felt like saying " Look James, just jump into bed with some girl, you will feel a lot better". The only thing good about Quantum is the technology. They copied the Italian roof top chase from the Bourne Identity and hoped none of us girls would notice.

The Microsoft touch table technology was fantastic though. So, Quantum is really a boy toy. Personally, I needed a bit more emotion, wit, and perhaps a bit more sex. Some movies just need to be sexy and Quantum just didn't get there this time. For £6.50 I do expect at least one sexy guy in the movie :). Daniel Craig was not at his best this time around. For all those who want to go to the movies, there is McDonalds Offer of 2 For 1. Essentially, for £6.50, you have got to get your money's worth in the guy stakes!

Its a bit like barristers, for £450 plus VAT you really have to have the complete package. For the record, all whistleblowers need charming, sexy and eloquent barristers. It is an essential accessory. In court, its important to have fabulous views to suppress the legal trauma. I often find that helpful. If all else fails of course, just pray the judge has some sex appeal. But you really need to get to the Court of Appeal for that fine wine effect :).

For anyone who doesn't know, Outer Temple Chambers tend to grow dashing barristers in their large factory. All male barristers there apparently have an abundance of charm, are debonair and cause most women to faint. I have no idea whether female clients who faint can fall straight into their barristers arms but I suspect they have clerks to catch those women. That's no bad thing of course because the clerks are often more dashing than the barristers. It is said that the secret of their success is large quantities of chocolate eaten before every court hearing. Outer Temple Chambers have cleared up at all the awards. There is a reason for that - its because all the men there have out of the world sex appeal. Seriously, if you set foot in the Chambers, I am just positive there is a oestrogen spike. Not that this has been measured in detail of course.

Three of my friends discovered the following seriously hot muffin at Outer Temple Chambers. Andy Spinks is apparently his name. By the way, he is a silk, this means that he is sexy by default. QC by the way stands for "Quite Cute". That's just for Lord Chancellor's records. There is no record of his cloak gliding speed as yet but give it time. We ask the question, have any women been able to concentrate in the presence of Andy?! He is likely to have caused atrial flutter, oestrogen overload, hot sweats, wonderbra dysfunction - and that's just at the court door.

The question we all need to ask is whether Andrew wears Saville Row Suits :).

Andrew Spinks QC
Legal 500 "“Pivotal to chambers, earning acclaim for his energy, commitment to client care and above all his superb litigation judgement”
In my view " Seriously Hot Stuff"

Anyway, for me there is always Colin Firth in Noel Coward's Easy Virtue to look forward to :)

Mad about the Boy - Easy Virtue

Osama Bin Laden Fan Was "A Highly Respected Member of The Neurology Ward At North Staffordshire NHS Trust"

Hunk of Burning Love For North Staffordshire NHS Trust

I suspect we have to give Mohammed Asha the benefit of the doubt because as a suspected terrorist he was given more rights than me. I am not surprised as he is so sickly complimentary to the NHS, it is as if he is sucking up to the British establishment. His compliments are effusively complimentary. He gushes at each sentence.

The BBC had this to say

"The court was told that, at the time of his arrest last June, Dr Asha was a highly-respected member of staff in the neurology ward at the University Hospital of North Staffordshire."

Yes, I bet he was, the only doctors who were not respected are the rest of us who pointed out the flaws

A March 2002 report by the Commission of Health Improvement of a Clinical Governance Review at North Staffordshire NHS Trust found serious shortcomings in the supervision of junior doctors,

"CHI was informed that junior doctors working in medicine were often inadequately supervised and often left alone on wards, particularly on the medical assessment unit (MAU). During an evening visit we found only two junior doctors covering MAU, which was full to capacity, with a further junior doctor covering MAU and emergency admissions; one junior doctor covered the medical wards and one covered medical outliers but these patients could be on wards on either site. CHI felt this situation posed a potential clinical risk to patients.”

3. The 2002 report went on to say, in Paragraph 5.78:

There were a number of concerns raised regarding support and supervision for junior doctors working in medicine. We were told of a number of occasions when it was felt there was a lack of support both during the day and when problems arise whilst oncall. The Trust has acknowledged that medical staffing at all levels is under resourced in medicine".

The BBC went onto quote the alleged terrorist :-

The doctor added: "I already had the blueprint of my future before I came here but in my experience here I really accepted the greatness of the health system in this country.

Then there is the issue of English

"I know people have complaints about the NHS but, take it from me, it is a great system.

"I love the country here, I love the way people treat each other here, especially medical training."

Dr Asha also revealed his English has improved while on remand in Belmarsh Prison.

He said: "It is definitely better than when I was arrested; funnily enough, this traumatic experience has some advantages.

"One of them was being in an English-speaking environment, only English, so I have been able to practise my English in prison."

The trial continues on Monday.

So are we to believe the General Medical Council and North Staffordshire NHS Trust employed someone who was not fluent in English while UK qualified doctors during the MMC remained unemployed? How quaint.

The prosecution found as follows

"Jonathan Laidlaw, prosecuting, said: “In a wallet on a bed in the box room, the police recovered a hand-written document in Arabic which includes a poem written in the first person amounting to a pledge of allegiance to Osama, presumably bin Laden. “Fingermarks on documents forming part of this same exhibit match those of Asha.”

Mr Laidlaw told the jury that documents found on a laptop at the house had such titles as Verdict Regarding The Permissibility Of Martyrdom Operations and The Clarification Of What Happened In America.Asha, aged 28, who allegedly provided funding and spiritual guidance to Abdulla and co-conspirator Kafeel Ahmed, was also seen trying to dispose of other documents as the police net closed around him.

On the evening of June 30, with the investigation into both attacks underway, Asha was put under police surveillance, and was seen leaving his home at 7.19pm, along with his family.

Police officers followed him to Pak Foods supermarket in Stoke Road, Shelton, and to Asda at Wolstanton Retail Park. At both, Asha was seen placing plastic bags into bins.

Mr Laidlaw said: “From the Asda car park Asha drove to the M6 motorway, joining the northbound carriageways, and at just after 9pm the police stopped his Mazda car and Asha was arrested.”

The items Asha dumped included a list of Islamic websites, documents in Arabic, and smashed rewritable CDs.The jury was told that he was the first person Abdulla and Ahmed phoned after their failed bombing bid in London.

It is therefore amazing that North Staffordshire NHS Trust would stand by a back this man. They have not denied Asha's " excellent reputation" and indeed have stood by and watched the effusive compliments showered upon him. In turn, Asha is playing to the British Public and is complimentary to his employers. The relationship is touching. I should say that at no time would North Staffordshire NHS Trust ever state that Dr Rita Pal was a hardworking respected doctor in 1998 there. They would though say that about an alleged terrorist.

So in conclusion, to be called a "much respected doctor" by North Staffordshire NHS Trust, you have to run around with Osama Bin laden memorabilia. You also have to be complimentary about their services as say as follows :-

Asha said: "I already had the blueprint of my future before I came here but in my experience here I really accepted the greatness of the health system in this country.

"I know people have complaints about the NHS but, take it from me, it is a great system. I love the country here, I love the way people treat each other here, especially medical training.

"It is not a criticism but learning by humiliation in Jordan is one of the standard ways in schools of medicine, and it is very competitive and very difficult sometimes. Here respect is the rule."

Flat Out

Resting Whistleblower

Dear Readers,

I am surprised I have any readers by the way. I clearly do - including the GMC at all hours of the day or night. I cause GMC Towers a lot of sleepless nights. Like all groovy chicks, I am having a weeks rest from this blog. I have important things to do like develop my observational interests in good looking men, learn to cook Italian food, finish my IT development to show the world I can actually type with more than one finger, watch Quantum of Solace and Easy Virtue etc etc. There are many other things I have to complete during this short break including making it to Blackpool to wolf down those small sugary doughnuts [FAB].

I am supposed to go through a detox from chocolate addiction. I have no idea what that means of course, save for the fact I may have to swap Thorntons for Galaxy.

I shall be back in about 7 days.

Ciao

Rita

Can Elizabeth Paice Find the "Abuse Button"???

London Deanery in Abuse Button "SHOCK".

Over the last few days, we have all be debating the issues concerning Elizabeth Plaice. Plaicey has essentially been moaning to the GMC about the true extent of her " shock" . I admit the criticism was made with Art Nouveau lyrical precision with an anglosaxon expletives influence. I thought it was a masterpiece myself. Once I get the entire post, I am going to submit it to the Summer Art Exhibition in London. The artiste in question is none other than surgeon and Scotsman Dr Scot Jnr.

As the vast majority of the medical world has no admiration for contemporary art, I decided to study this Scottish masterpiece.

The Filthy Pen has a lot to say about the use of the anglosaxon expletive. This is what the blog says

"Each of today's graffitists has opted to write a single Anglo-Saxon expletive, and to liven up their chosen word by labouring over its style. And what flourishes they’ve applied. Embellished with artful curves and loops, the opportunities to air their creative bents have not been wasted. They may only have had four letters to work with, but they’ve all managed to create mini masterpieces out of their limited resources"

Timothy Jay the researcher on language states

"If all science on language stopped now, we would know very little about dirty word usage or how dirty word usage relates to more normal language use."

Person Elizabeth Plaice.

In 1975 the Australian linguist B. A. Taylor published a serious study of abusive language in the Australian context. He began his paper thus:

If English were...a Germanic language spoken in Northern Delaware, and particularly if it were the language of some indigenous tribe, it is pretty certain that some enterprising anthropologist would long since have recognised and described the subsystem of taboo language contained within it.

Expletive Deleted is well worth a read. Scot Jnr's masterpiece is therefore a reflection of the times we live in, inspired by the fact that times have moved on as has language. Plaice of course has not moved on. She lives in her ivory tower and dictates. That is what she is good at and that is why everyone hates her.

So what we find terribly offensive really depends on the social norm. This morning, I woke up to find some comments made by Dr Elizabeth Miller. Here they are :-

"People who are shocked by words alone, as opposed to descriptions of real events, lack experience of life. They belong to the "I didn't like the way he looked at me" rather than the "I didn't want my friend to die in custody" school of thinking.

Reasons for such hypersensitivity might include an overprotected life, an over inflated salary, too many layers between the person and what matters, too much power and too little responsibility.

Words alone are not shocking, only the meaning they convey. Perhaps Dr Scott's words hit home because in that tiny vestigial structure that was once her soul, she recognised a truth.

In the meantime, I believe we should all raise our game and aspire to surpass the literary bar raised by Dr Scott Junior - Dr Rant, it's over to you

For the record, I have had far less controversial posts removed from [Doctors only Website]. All a person has to do is press the "report this post" button, the moderators come scuttling and it instantly disappears, as if by magic. Why it took EP seven days to find the button, heaven only knows!

I resigned from [Doctors only Website] early this year largely for this reason. It is not a safe plaice.

We must not of course forget the " shock" caused to other doctors due to Plaicey's negligent actions. One is that of Dr Vijay Jhadav. The other was Tushar Bhadra whom she threatened. There are many many others, the MMC doctors, whistleblowers and others. Plaicey feels everyone else should be held accountable but her. Her response shows that she is of the view she has godlike power to rule everyone on earth. It is time for her resignation now. As a person pointed out last week - it is time London Deanery had a change of management. No one will have confidence in Elizabeth Plaice after the end of this complaint - even if she is vindicated. I also wanted to know her role in Debra Shepherd. I would like to know who reported Debra Shepherd's posts to the GMC. If Plaicey had her claws in Debra Shepherd then we shall then continue to redefine the concept of "shock" . I am still very annoyed about what happened to Debra. I haven't forgotten - just because many other people forget.

Professor Paice/Carol Black. Respect Should be Earned, Not Demanded.

Respect - Paice Has to Earn It

I understand from the blogsphere that most people with tame vocabulary have given Dr Scot Jnr rather a frosty reception. We are still unclear whether the post referred to Carol Black or Professor Paice. She writes "The extracts from the posting which concerned me particularly are as follows". Depending where the emphasis it placed, it may have concerned Paice herself or Carol Black. The entire post was not provided by the GMC despite being appended by Elizabeth Paice. We are waiting for the entire post. This is what Dr Scot Jnr stated.

"As a representative of the medical profession you represent, at best, a mendacious, avaricious self serving career power chaser with many psychopathic personality traits and at worst a malignant, destructive, ignoble, dishonourable empty husk of soiled humanity…… You may also wish to think about inserting your immaculate portfolio up your anal orifice…... … it is about time you shut your malignant, shit encrusted stoma of a mouth and fucked off to your witches' bastard palace and pontificated to a coven of shitbags more receptive to your line of thinking...”

Now, we should get certain matters in perspective here, the laws of the land dictate that free speech is absolute. The case law does not support Professor Paice. The legal directive is discussed here.

This is the case law

"REDMOND-BATE Appellant - and -DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS Respondent Case No: CO/188/99

The quote is

"Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having. What Speakers’ Corner (where the law applies as fully as anywhere else) demonstrates is the tolerance which is both extended by the law to opinion of every kind and expected by the law in the conduct of those who disagree, even strongly, with what they hear. From the condemnation of Socrates to the persecution of modern writers and journalists, our world has seen too many examples of state control of unofficial ideas. A central purpose of the European Convention on Human Rights has been to set close limits to any such assumed power. We in this country continue to owe a debt to the jury which in 1670 refused to convict the Quakers William Penn and William Mead for preaching ideas which offended against state orthodoxy"

The problem for Elizabeth Paice is that free speech gives Dr Scot Jnr a very very wide berth. Over the years, hundreds of young doctors have had the same thoughts and haven't said anything. The problem with Dr Scot Jnr's remark is that he was essentially right.This is a excellent description of the current upper echelons of power. It could be applied to any of them. To demand politeness, Paice has to have acted with fairness over the years. The above order of words is nothing compared to the lives she has ruined over the years. This is no simple issue, Paice has purposely, maliciously and vindictively ruined doctors lives and there has been no accountability for it. Black seems to have done the same with the MMC.

I believe doctors who lead a fairly cushy existence forget about what it is like to have your rights violated. So, I would stand by each of the sentences written by Dr Scot Junior, I would also defend his right to say it. In a world that lacks accountability, if Dr Scot Jnr had not said it, the issue of violation of human rights of doctors would not be at the forefront. Seniors have happily carried on their merry way. The above is a frustrated outpourings of a doctor who knew there was no accountability or process of accountability for any senior's actions. This is what people do when there are no more options left. It is evidence that the doctors are not happy with the current system. They are also fed up of being trapped and having their careers used as a sword of democles each time they say something to defend themselves.

Did Elizabeth Paice/Black care about any of the doctors who had fallen by the wayside courtesy of the MMC? Of course, they didn't. It is clear that Paice apparent "shock" at the above comments is nothing compared to the "shock" suffered by many many doctors over the years. These are the doctors who have been powerless to defend themselves against her. She should ask herself what she did about all the dead patients on Ward 87. Did they find it a "shock" to be found dead because she sat back and did nothing?

There are some schools of thought that say that we should forget what Paice did, move on as they feel it won't make a difference. That is of course one school of thought but a different school of thought is that the right to free speech is worth defending. There were ways that Paice could have dealt with matters out of hours had she felt uncomfortable about the post, she could have asked for its removal and she could have defended herself/or her colleague. If she was in so much " shock" she could have sought counselling. Afterall, that is what her solution to whistleblowers who report the death of patients. What she did was opt to teach Dr Scot Jnr a lesson for having the temerity to criticise her. And that was the bottom line.

Will the GMC protect her? Probably - they hunt on here for my representations of the issue constantly. That is of course absolutely fine because I break most norms that exist within GMC Towers. I suspect I am rather different, I am a hybrid between being Indian and English. I don't value politeness in the absence of actual action. I don't value facades and I don't think any doctor should be "nice" to Professors until they start developing some insight into the repercussions of their actions. If Dr Scot Jnr had said the above in India, no one would judge him. They do judge him in the UK, with a fine yardstick of how the establishment expect doctors to behave. The public expect doctors to stand up for them and against the violation of human rights.

There are some people in life who don't deserve to be treated with respect. They have to earn that respect not demand it. Paice/Black have yet to earn the respect of junior doctors.

It is a great shame that so many people give up so easily. Then that is because the medical profession sleeps. That is why Paice gets away with all abuses of power because everyone fears to tread but prefers to take the line of political correctness.

Paicing Herself.

The Icy Response

A formal complaint was made to the General Medical Council regarding Professor Elizabeth Paice. The details of this can be read here.

The response to the complaint was made recently. The GMC disclosed the following response from Professor Paice to me today.

Perhaps the posters on the Doctors Only website could confirm the accuracy of the statements made by Paice. If there are any elements of further dishonest behaviour, please will the relevant people let me know. I am due to write a rebuttal to this response which should be a rather simple matter. I am always happy to have additional input,views and opinions to include within my response. I have until the 28th November 2008 apparently. Secondly, please note that Paice has not defended herself against the substantive allegations made against her listed in my formal complaint.

The material is published in line with the GMC's own transparency guidance.

Response to Complaint: GMC Reference C1-220901005

1. I am a postgraduate dean, a role I have held since 1995. I have responsibility for managing the postgraduate education and training of doctors in London.

2. Doctors.net.uk is a professional network for GMC registered doctors and UK medical students. A clinical discussion forum area is provided for professional discussion, and according to Doctors.net.uk this is used by more than 20,000 doctors in a 30 day period. There are open and closed fora in the area. One open forum is entitled ‘Air your views to the media’ and it is clearly stated to contributors that this forum is also open to a list of named journalists.

3. On 12 July, 2008 an open letter addressed to a senior member of the profession was posted by ‘abrachmackay’ on the ‘Air your views to the media’ forum. When I read this I was shocked by the abusive and offensive language used. I append the full posting. The extracts from the posting which concerned me particularly are as follows: “As a representative of the medical profession you represent, at best, a mendacious, avaricious self serving career power chaser with many psychopathic personality traits and at worst a malignant, destructive, ignoble, dishonourable empty husk of soiled humanity…… You may also wish to think about inserting your immaculate portfolio up your anal orifice…... … it is about time you shut your malignant, shit encrusted stoma of a mouth and fucked off to your witches' bastard palace and pontificated to a coven of shitbags more receptive to your line of thinking...”

4. On 16 July 2008, I contacted a colleague who has Board level responsibilities for Doctors.net.uk, and with whom I had previously discussed the use of abusive language on this website. I sent him the posting concerned, which I had copied from the site. He replied, letting me know that he shared my concern and that he had raised it with the executive team. The posting concerned was edited, though not removed, on 17 July 2008. The edited version removed the language that caused me particular concern.

5. On 19 July 2008, having reflected on the case, and having observed that the author of the offensive posting had identified himself as a surgical trainee in Inverness, I sent an email to the postgraduate dean for that part of Scotland, bringing the posting to her attention. I did this because I felt that the language of the posting raised concerns about the professionalism of the individual who wrote it. In alerting his postgraduate dean, I was responding to the fact that this was a doctor in training, whose education was the responsibility of the deanery. I was mindful of Para 46 of Good Medical Practice and considered that his actions could fall within the category of bullying and harassment of a colleague. I was aware of the duty to challenge such behaviour.

6. This was the end of my involvement. I did not, then or later, make any recommendation to Doctors.net.uk, nor to the Scottish deanery, nor to the hospital concerned, nor to anyone else, about how the case should be handled.

7. I believe the action that I took was appropriate and proportionate, in view of the grossly offensive and abusive nature of the posting, in a forum open to thousands of doctors and the media. The posting was not removed or edited for five days, until I brought it to the attention of the web managers as described above.

Professor Elisabeth Paice
Dean Director
London Deanery
14 November 2008

Does the Government Listen to Whistleblowers?!!

Labour Government.
Ignored all warnings.

I was awake early this morning as usual. Sky News presented the story of a whistleblower who had raised concerns about Child P. The Sky News anchor seemed bemused that the government had not acted on her concerns. How many of us have sent concerns of public importance to government departments and how many of us have had the door shut in our faces? Every whistleblower apart from Steve Bolsin has had the door shut in their faces. The only reason Steve Bolsin didn't was because he had Private Eye backing him. The rest of us mere mortals have to fend for ourselves, hoping that one day our concerns will be taken seriously. A lady told me yesterday that she had written thousands of letters about the violation of human rights in the courts. No one had listened. I think this is endemic of the current government and the systems in England now. No one listens to legitimate concerns.

Prior to the closure of Ward 87, the concerns were sent to Members of the House of Lords, Frank Dobson, every MP in the Houses of Parliament and every authority. No one paid any attention. The two Labour MPs [Mark Fisher and Frank Cook] who purportedly paid some attention and told me they would refer the matter to the Health Commission. I found out two years later no referral was ever made. When Mr Fisher MP was asked about it by the Parliamentary Commissioner, he told him that all documents had been destroyed and he could not "remember". It is selective the memory loss that is astounding. Mr Cook pointed out he had more important things to deal with like national security. I then thought about Dr Mohammed Asha who is currently being tried for terrorism. He worked in Mark Fisher's MP's town. Did Mark Fisher MP do anything about it? Perhaps the efforts of both these men at national security hasn't been very effective. Anyway, more on these MPs soon. The Lying Game always demands public accountability.

The Labour Government never does anything when concerns are raised about the risk to the public or even children. They do go out of their way to undermine and discredit the whistleblower. Their MPs suggest that whistleblowers require "emotional help" when the only people who require attitudinal help is them.

The Labour government has never listened to whistleblowers. Had Child P not happened the whistleblower's concerns would never have seen the light of day

"The woman pleaded for a public inquiry and claimed: "Child abusers are not being tackled." The council has since gagged her with an injunction. The letters were sent by Lawrence Davies, a solicitor for the former Haringey social worker Nevres Kemal, in February 2007 – six months before the 17-month-old boy known as "Baby P" died at the hands of his mother, her boyfriend and their lodger"

Not only did the government have access to this whistleblowing report but they had access to D Southall's predictions. In his speech to the Royal College of Paediatricians in 2004, he told us that the current system was inadequate to protect children. D Southall seems to be a lost voice as few media outlets fail to mention him. They did though vilify him for attempting to protect a child in the case of Mrs M. Is Ms M honest? That is what the papers think. The documentation show rather a different view. The social worker in that case was not believed. So you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. One thing is for certain, if Child P was taken care of by D Southall, there would never be a fatality. Social workers are never congratulated for the hard work they have done in the past to protect children. John Hemming MP has done his best to undermine child protection. The media should look at the 360 degree aspect of factors that have nationally undermined child protection. This includes the role of the media in propagating cases that have no merit. There are those wrongly accused, there are those who are rightly accused but who play the wrongly accused card. The media should take some responsibility in causing a catastrophic destruction of child protection services.

The University of East Anglia's study was a warning to the government. Another study they ignored.

Now you can watch the Labour spin machine attempting to cover up for the fact that the government fucked up, and Child P died. How many other patients, children have done needlessly?

The conclusion here is that no one listens to whistleblowers until disaster strikes.

Person Frank Cook

Right click for SmartMenu shortcuts

Stepping Up The Paice.

Paice in Action
The GMC Complaint can be accessed here.

Our webmaster wondered why our websites were infested with dementors from GMC Towers. Now we know why. The Register, the respected IT internet magazine featured them. It is always good to know we can all rely on the Register which has millions of readers. We should all remember that the Sunday Times failed to feature Dr Scott junior despite requesting an update of the investigation. Anyhow, my thanks to the intrepid and excellent reporter Chris Williams. I have read the Register for some years now and it has become addictive.

For all those who missed it, the definitive collection on the Dr Scot Jnr issue was created by the excellent Witchdoctor. Perhaps my fellow bloggers may wish to feature this out of solidarity, to enable Google UK to list it well and to ensure that Paice is held accountable publicly, on the internet and at the General Medical Council.

Paice is going to require a double dose of Belgian Chocolate - because she knows that in 10 years I have never given up. So even if Paice gets her mates to fix up the case at the GMC, I am always going to be there with another alternative. At this juncture, perhaps a spot of counselling for Paice may not go amiss.Isn't that what she recommends for whistleblowers? Abusing power is her game. She has done it for years to many many doctors.

Further entertainment on McJobbyGate can be accessed here.

Doctors' authorities probe suspension of mucky-mouthed medic

GMC investigates alleged abuse of power

By Chris Williams • Get more from this author

Posted in Law, 12th November 2008 11:51 GMT

Webcast: Delivering The Application Platform

The actions of two senior members of the medical establishment are being investigated by authorities for their role in the suspension of a young Scottish doctor who left foul-mouthed criticism of a quango boss on a web message board.

Professor Elisabeth Paice, dean director of postgraduate medical and dental education at the London Deanery, and Professor Gillan Needham, her counterpart at the Highland Deanery in Scotland, have been asked by the General Medical Council's fitness to practice directorate to respond to a complaint their actions were against disciplinary rules.

The probe comes after Rita Pal, a blogging doctor who was involved in the campaign to reinstate the doctor at the centre of the controversy, wrote to the GMC in late August accusing professors Paice and Needham of abuse of power.

A spokeswoman for the London Deanery said it had no comment on the development. Professor Needham's employers in Scotland have refused to discuss the controversy.

Rita Pal said: "The complaint was made for the sole purpose of improving accountability in the medical profession. Senior members of the medical establishment are frequently of the view that they can abuse the powers given to them for their own personal reasons.

"The General Medical Council has a duty to protect fundamental rights of those who are very junior."

The GMC is obliged to consider all complaints, but has now launched a full investigation of the suspension. The investigation is likely to take several months.

Dr Scot Jr, as the suspended surgeon became known online, is a junior surgeon at Raigmore Hospital in Inverness. He was barred from working for six weeks during August and September for branding Dame Carol Black "fucking shit" on the medical professionals-only forum Doctors.net.uk.

Black is the chair of the Academy of Royal Medical Colleges, and sits on several powerful medical quangos. She is unpopular among grassroots doctors for her role in the government's Modernising Medical Careers database fiasco, which left thousands of newly-qualified doctors unable to work and thousands of hospital posts unfilled in 2007.

Dr Scot Jr's comment was read by Paice, who reported it to Needham, who runs his deanery. She then had him pulled from work. In the meantime, Dr Scot Jr had asked Doctors.net.uk to remove the comment, which it did.

The GMC Good Medical Practice guidelines (paragraph 47) prohibit doctors from making "malicious and unfounded criticisms of colleagues that may undermine patients' trust in the care or treatment they receive, or in the judgement of those treating them". The authority has stated in the past that the rule refers only to clinical matters, however. Dr Scot Jr's supporters argue that his suspension was therefore illegal.

Speaking to The Reg in September, the London Deanery rejected that argument, saying: "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 GMC investigation is likely to centre on whether Dr Scot Jr's profane posting could be interpreted as relating to a clinical matter and whether the actions of Professors Paice and Needham were therefore appropriate under the rules.

The suspension sparked a campaign for rights to free speech and claims that medical professionals would not speak out against senior doctors because of fears for their career.

Dr Matt Jameson-Evans, co-chairman of RemedyUK, a 13,000-strong grassroots doctors' organisation, said the controversy had made Dr Scot Jr fear his career was already over. He said: "There are established ways in this profession of dealing with complaints if patient safety is threatened. This is a much more grey area; we definitely support an investigation of whether there was an abuse of power, and it would appear the GMC is the right body to do that.

"A senior doctor called up a friend of theirs and an instant suspension was levied. It needs to be investigated; the taxpayer paid for six weeks of this doctor not working." ®

Peter Gooderham's Sheep Pen

Meanwhile at the Doctors Only Website.
OMG OMG "He has a law degree, he must be right" :)

Peter Gooderham is a doctor converted into a lawyer. Both roles should ensure that he declares his conflicts of interests when providing a talk :). Gooderham will disagree with this aspect but bias is important in this day and age. I know from my sources that he has aligned himself with PACA and also Dr Jennifer Colman. Jennifer is affectionately known as the Poisoned Dwarf and always has a position to maintain in all aspects of the world. What that position is, no one knows. As everyone is aware, Jennifer sued the GMC for a few million but ended up with nothing.

I mention Jennifer because Peter Gooderham's talk in Birmingham was rather more interesting if you observe it in detail. There are almost two slides dedicated to the issues concerning Jennifer Colman [Pre-Determination]. Some weeks ago Gooderham admitted to not advising on any Colman cases. He certainly knows of the issues in intimate detail. Gooderham has also toed the line where he has not publicly aligned himself with Jennifer Colman. I have no idea why this is nevertheless the age of chivalry is not dead because here he is in the BMJ saving Colman. On the 12th December 2004, this is what Jennifer Colman said in an email

"Gooderham has sent me the chat line from it- she is basically rubbishing Dame Janet Smith's report. I'll send you what Gooderham sent to me- but don't publish any of his stuff or mention him as his position will be ruined at Cardiff Law School in medical law and he is an excellent mole with lines of communication into many parts of the medical establishment,and I don't want to lose that connection"

Colman will no doubt consider it impertinent to publish extracts. She should though be pleased that she is not subject to the emails between her and Brian Morgan, the freelance journalist cum cyberstalker who lives in Cardiff. Brian Morgan of course is the man who feeds negative material to the media on David Southall. Oddly enough and it is an interesting coincidence, Gooderham is based in Cardiff. Perhaps Morgan and Gooderham ought to meet up for tea and discuss the influence of Scientology and Anthony Gomez at the GMC. Just an idea for a conversation piece.

The other interesting issue is Colman's over sympathy for Penny Mellor, a born again ex convict. Colman has sympathy for Mellor - for obvious reasons. She feels I should not bash Mellor on the head with her criminal record. Colman is no doubt aware of the trials and tribulations of criminal records. PACA no doubt is so starry eyed about their new found lawyer that they have given Gooderham a group hug. I always find the word "mole" from Jennifer rather interesting. If I were Brian Morgan, I would keep in touch with Jennifer Colman so that information does travel from PACA to the Mellor camp. Who cares about the safety of David Southall these days? Certainly not PACA. I think its information free for all now.

Anyway, enough of pointless gossip and discussions of trojan horses.

One wonders if he would have ever featured those slides had he not known her personally. In any case, Peter is a sucker for a sob story and we must give him credit for that. He quotes Dame Carol Black

“Regulation for me signifies any measure or intervention carried out by government, or on behalf of government, or some other statutory body, that seeks to change the behaviour of individuals or groups.” Professor Dame Carol Black, GMC Council Member, Chairman of Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, etc., etc., etc

There are problems with Gooderham's talk in that he does not define the basics for doctors or lawyers. Other resources that are vital regarding the GMC are documents such as Acting Fairly To Protect Patients. This document summarises the reasons the GMC has tilted in favour of the "patient". It also goes onto define the Public Interest. Here is the definition

"The Merrison Committee 2 said that ‘the GMC should be able to take action in relation to the registration of a doctor…in the interest of the public’, and that the public interest had ‘two closely interwoven strands: the particular need to protect the individual patient, and the collective need to maintain the confidence of the public in their doctors’3. In the context of the PCC case in 1998 concerning children’s heart surgery in Bristol the Privy Council confirmed that view, holding that the public interest included, but was not limited to, the protection of individual members of the public. Other factors were the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct.4 The proposals in this document are based on the premise that the fundamental purpose of the fitness to practise procedures is to promote and safeguard the public interest, understood in these terms"

The definition of a " public interest" is vital when doctors come to defend themselves against the GMC. Gooderham again fails to mention that there is no definitive definition of Serious Professional Misconduct. There is no guidance for the initial filtering ie the Registrar and there is no vexatious policy to prevent vexatious complaints from filtering through. In essence, anyone can complain to the GMC with any bizarre allegation and the doctor would be subjected to a 6-8 months investigation. Gooderham simplifies the actual issues surrounding the initial consideration of a complaint against a doctor. He also fails to mention that the Rules of the GMC changed in 2004. The change of rules provided the Registrar with a certain amount of discretion for preliminary work. These are the 2004 rules. The rest of the rules can be found here.

Gooderham fails to mention the vital Internal Documents of the GMC. One is the Disclosure Policy Document and the other is the Investigation Manual. These can be obtained from the General Medical Council following a Freedom of Information Act request. He fails to mention that the GMC admit [Investigation Manual] to lifting media articles and commencing an investigation on the doctor. The disclosure policy document is interesting because it shows that once the complaint goes past a primary filtering stage, the entire complaint is disclosed to all and sundry - so for a junior doctor - this would be 5 years of their employment history. So if a complainant stated " This doctor is a paedophile", that allegation would essentially be disclosed to all and sundry. So, the allegation may be false but there is no gatekeeper regulations or directive to prevent this. So even if this doctor was cleared at any stage, the damaging allegations would remain on file. It is this damaging issue that both PACA and Peter Gooderham have failed to grasp. It is the principles that they have not considered in depth or the actual manner in which the GMC functions. Gooderham then moves forward to mention the case examiners. He does not mention that the case examiners actually have some guidance. This is their guidance.

No where in his talk does he then mention the realistic prospect test. This is yet another vital document for all doctors to be able to read. The leading case law on this is Henshall.

He fails to mention the failings of the GMC in ensuring there are no conflics of interests. For example - vested interests and memberships to organisations such as Scientology cannot be prevented. Workers at the GMC, committee members or panellists' application forms do not have to disclose their links to Scientology. The GMC admitted to this recently in an email to me. Julian Graves of the GMC said this

"This confirms that there is no requirement for Council members to register any links to Scientology. This guidance also applies to panellists. Additionally I have confirmed with our HR Department that they do not have any record of GMC staff registering links with Scientology"

So in summary, no one has any idea how many scientologists parade themselves at GMC Towers. This principle applies to other groups.

Gooderham fails to mention that Good Medical Practise comes in different versions from the Blue Book onwards. Doctors are often subjected to the Good Medical Practise document developed in 2006 rather than the one developed in the year when the "allegation" occurred. This is a flawed administrative process not noticed by many doctors or lawyers facing the General Medical Council.

It is very interesting that Gooderham does not mention the fact that there may well be a race relations element in the GMC's decision making process. We don't know whether this is so because the GMC cleverly has not detailed their statistics. I am also surprised that he did not mention the definitive research by Isobel Allen. She states as follows

"One of the main problems identified is that there is no commonly understood working definition of 'serious professional misconduct', through which a doctor may be disciplined or struck off the register. This has undoubtedly led to a lack of clarity among GMC members and staff on the criteria, standards and threshold to be applied in reaching a judgment on cases at the different stages of the complaints procedures.

The research also found marked differences in outcome between different GMC committees, and concluded that this lack of consistency was difficult to account for in the absence of clear reasons given for decisions. Much greater transparency had been introduced at the screening stage of the GMC procedures, but there were still inconsistencies which could not be explained"

This is still the leading research on the General Medical Council. I also quite like this article by Samanta.

Gooderham quotes a wishy washy paper from the BMJ written by Peter Wilmshurst. The most important paper was his personal view. This can be found here.

There is some discussion on the Civil Standard of Proof. Sadly, for all doctors concerned, case law from the past determined that the GMC should have always had the civil standard of proof. Indeed this was recommended by a number of cases at the Privy Council. Other regulatory bodies work on the civil standard of proof. This was discussed by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society in the past. Historically, we can therefore argue that the General Medical Council has always used the wrong standard of proof. The GMC will not agree to that so we now have to accept the civil standard of proof. This was a document written by Lord Lester of Blackstone Chambers. Given Isobel Allen's conclusions, we wonder if the General Medical Council even used the criminal standard of proof. Perhaps it was simply a clever set of words to provide doctors with a false sense of security. We can safely conclude that the GMC has probably always used the civil standard in varying degrees and called it the "Criminal Standard". Of course, there is no standardisation at the GMC. There is no consistency of decision making. The GMC itself admits that cases at the GMC are not persuasive. They frequently tell you " each case is considered on its own merits". In reality, their decision making is arbitrary and based on the luck of the draw. Given the findings in the Shipman Inquiry and the standard of decision making, we wonder what the true extend of human rights violations is at the GMC. No one has examined it.

Within the fightback of the Profession, Gooderham failed to mention Pal v GMC 2004. Oh, a purposeful skip over it perhaps? That is alright because I will mention it here. I know all white male medics stick together and crow about themselves - so us ethnic minorities will simply crow about our own victories because we can :). And Oh look it is on Bailli as well :). On a separate note, I would like to say that Cardiff Law School told me that this case could not be executed. It was executed and completed. The other mode of action for the profession is to challenge the GMC through the Human Rights Act 1998. It can also be done through defamation law although Peter Cater Ruck would never agree. The procedural irregularity at the GMC may break the defence of qualified privilege. I have no intention of testing this to hearing but some other clever doctor might like to try it. Nothing is ever impossible.

Defence Unions are ineffective and lethargic. They fail to deal aggressively with complaints at the start. The way to win is to accelerate and on occasion, attack is the best way of defence. I don't say this just to doctors but also to patients and their relatives. I know Gooderham has failed to mention the leading cases in GMC jurisprudence - that of Toth etc. I owe a lot to Mr Arpad Toth - he taught me how to defend myself against the GMC. The other lady is Jennifer Campbell. I say this because there are many in the public who are much better than doctors at fighting the system. Doctors tend to sit around allowing their defence union to dig large holes. When they are about to fall into said hole, they start to scream and shout.

Phil Walcock is one person who fights the GMC with logic and there are many like him. While Gooderham tilts his speech in support of doctors, we should always remember that not all doctors are innocent. There is a huge risk that those who campaign for justice at the GMC will end up protecting those who are extremely guilty. PACA is one such group who assumes innocence in all doctors. I was devastated to find that Camille Lazarro was a member of PACA. Justice Eady who is one of the judges I have a great deal of respect for stated as follows

"Mr Justice Eady criticised Dr Lazaro for "throwing objectivity and scientific rigour to the winds in a highly emotional misrepresentation of the facts."

Here is further information on this PACA member. So why is PACA supporting Lazaro? Did she follow protocols? Does PACA vett the doctors who join their group or is the doctor considered "innocent by default"?

There should now be a balance of patients and doctors rights. If the GMC is able to do that, they have performed their function. The GMC has a long journey ahead of it before it can balance the interests of doctors and patients.

This is written because I know a number of members of the public read it. It is also meant to show them that - even the worst and cleverest of enemies can be beaten if you do your research. I am not a lawyer, when I fell into problems, I had myself to rely on. I didn't cry about it, I just got on with it. These days, I can challenge any lawyer any time on any day. I may not be as eloquent as them but to aim to be the best in any war you fight is an important lesson for everyone.

Gooderham knows what the books tell him. His talk has its limitations but of course I was not present on the day so I may well be unfair to him. His failure to declare his conflicts is a huge problem. The gaps in his practical knowledge is also surprising. For me, I had hoped the slides would have been better - a little more dynamic, a little more informative to those defending doctors. Anyway, I have completed what the discussion lacked. Hopefully, in the not to distant future doctors out there [ and even patients] will be able to use the two documents together to develop their own strategy. I am a practical GMC Slayer, I do it for myself, I do it for others. and I have done it since 2003 I am the sort of person that believes that anything is possible. You just get the books out - and do it. Arpad Toth shows us that you don't need degrees or qualifications to fight the best.

Peter Gooderham is the academic with all the facts, he talks the talk and walks the walk :). He gets the books out and talks about it. He also seems to have a narrow experience of GMC cases to quote from. This is probably his main downfall. He sadly fails to mention the plight of sick doctors raised bravely by Liz Miller. Miller has done more for doctors than all of us put together.
One slide on this aspect would have been more fruitful than the space dedicated to Southall. Southall of course has more people protecting and defending him than the Pope. PACA has now become much like the Vatican.

I probably shouldn't have written this but it would be a bit silly to allow the world of medics to follow Gooderam like sheep because he has the law degrees. PACA certainly does :) but then they would probably follow anything with a degree or two no matter how much rubbish is blurted out.

Being an academic has its advantages of course - no one dares to question them because they don't know enough about the subject. Toth used to say that any subject can be mastered by applying your mind. Peter Gooderam is lucky that Arpad Toth is not here slicing his speech right down to its knees because Toth is the leading authority on GMC jurisprudence. Toth has no legal qualification but wrote the arguments for his barrister in his winning judicial review. I always believe a speech from Toth would have been more informative, balanced and entertaining. Peter still thinks like a doctor - when he should be thinking like a lawyer and teaching his colleagues to defend themselves. No doubt, I will have tons of mails moaning about how I should not " pick on Gooderam". I am sure he is man enough to defend himself. He is a lawyer afterall and I am sure any crocodile tears will be wiped off his brow by his many supporters [ yep, medical group hug coming up].

Anyway, as relicensing looms, we will see that all the doctors will be herded in to their pen by the Border Collie formally known as Finlay Scott. Some sheep never learn to defend themselves because they are too busy talking about defending themselves.

NB This was written from memory 20 minutes so if anyone spots any errors, please list it in the comments section.

Person Jennifer Campbell

Right click for SmartMenu shortcuts