GMC Denies Me JobbyGate Post :). The Hide and Seek Game

Ethnically Correct GMC Hiding The Jobbygate Post

So we see that the GMC want to play pass the parcel again :). This is what they always do. I am sure it is Toni Smerdon or Juliet Oliver's doing. They are the inept lawyers at GMC Towers by the way. One was told off by a high court judge and complained about by Prof Tim David and the other develops arguments out of her high heels. The problem with high heels is that they really wear out before they reach the court.

The GMC have provided Paice and Needham's response to my complaint. Both have had no desire to response to the substantive questions raised. This is because they are of the view that they can sit on their colleagues at GMC towers to let them off. I accept that, we all do but it is always fun to see them all in action.

At present, the GMC are refusing to respond to valid questions raised with them. They are also refusing to show me the jobbygate post. The jobbygate post was enclosed with each response. from Paice and Needham but it is currently omitted from all GMC correspondence to me despite being referred to. The GMC cherry picks their correspondence and sends it to me hoping that I won't notice.

This is my favourite GMC quote

"I also believe passionately in fairness, both to patients and to doctors. At a minimum, processes and procedures should be fair, objective, transparent and free from unfair discrimination" Graeme Catto 2006"

Of course, this has happened once before. Toni Smerdon will recall that her antics in omitting the North Staffordshire NHS Trust reports from the Professor Griffiths response just didn't work. They sent me his response but no enclosures :).This effort at non disclosure fell flat on her face when they had to disclose the documents to me in the end. The GMC know the law, they know the rule in Henshall.

"Accordingly, I agree with Mr Havers' submission that there is no legal basis upon which a doctor in a response to disciplinary proceedings before the GMC had any right to refuse consent to disclosure to the complainant, on the ground of confidentiality or otherwise, so as effectively to remove from the PPC a discretion whether or not to make disclosure in the interest of fairness of both parties."

They know the law with Norwich Pharmacal and they also know that it is important and fair for me to have access to the post in order to respond meaningfully. They know the GMC should ensure Article 6 HRA rights to the complainant and the doctor. At present, the GMC aren't being "transparent". They are concealing "documentation" from me.

We therefore ask the question - why this purposeful concealment?

David Patterson, the person dealing with this at GMC Towers is being evasive. He is not responding to questions asked of him to clarify various aspects of the issues raised. Thats ok, twenty people can play the same silly game.

This is Professor Needham's response. Clearly she was too busy at some hotel examining Hemlock to even pen her own response so she got her little servants at the MDDUS to do it for her. I love the MDDUS because they are so ineffective at their defences. I recall them walking out on my friend Dr Sushant Varma GMC case - mid hearing. Gosh, what a defence union eh. You wouldn't give a Castlemaine Four X for that sort of crappy representation. Everyone should note the "blank" language they use. The MDDUS are quite right, the GMC have not allowed me access to the precious post :).

By the way, this is detailed to provide an interesting example of the manner in which the GMC deals with complaints. Essentially, they do what they feel like.

How long shall we play this game of hide and seek then?!