Conservatives and Whistleblowers

Conservatives and whistleblowers. I have no idea whether they go together.

The Midlands newspapers featured the following article

"Every NHS worker will have a legal right to speak out if hospitals are failing their patients, under Conservative proposals. Shadow health minister Andrew Lansley announced plans to give staff the right to report concerns to the official health watchdog, as he visited Stafford hospital. He said fear of speaking out had allowed problems at Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust to continue"

We won't count the number my emails and letters the Conservatives have not responded to. Nevertheless, they should be applauded for their insight in recognizing that whistleblowers do not have free speech.

Jobbing Doctor's Pulse

The Very Sexy Jobbing Doctor.

Jobbing Doctor is becoming a bit of a star on Pulse. I love his writing as everyone knows and he is the best rep for all of us intemperate beings whose style isn't suited to such publications.

JD wrote the following about why doctors did not whistleblow against Mid Staffs.

I should correct the following material slightly [if infact he refers to me although I do apologize if that wasn't the case]. JD writes :-

"I'll tell you why. Because those who have acted as whistleblowers in the past have seen their careers wrecked, that’s why. One brave doctor reported a neighbouring trust and as a result was reported to the GMC, was suspended, had allegations about her mental health raised and since then has scarcely worked. Another had to move to the other side of the world to be able to work"

Few corrections here :-

1. I wasn't reported to the GMC. I raised concerns with the GMC in the year 2000. They took up an investigation without a complaint and conducted a discreet inquiry for 2 years. It was essentially a illegal non procedural inquiry. In R v General Medical Council Ex Parte Powell, the GMC argued that a complaint could not be taken up without a formal complaint. Well, we know about Mark Shaw QC don't we, tilts with the stormy seas of the law. I am surprised he doesn't get sea sick.

Anyhow, this is what the General Medical Council did :-

"Despite the above, the General Medical Council refused to investigate the issues. They did though say as follows on Page 4 of the document 1st July 2004 Ref EMP/199/ZRA. This document was written by a lawyer by the name of Zahidar Ramzan Asghar :-

On behalf of her client Professor Griffiths she wrote

" Our client was asked by the General Medical Council as to why the Complainant might have made these allegations and whether our client thought that the General Medical Council should proceed against the complainant for making what appeared to be accusations in an unprofessional manner"

2. I have never been suspended from the GMC Register or any employment. There has never been any sanctions against me. Hard to believe but true :)

3. I did infact work between 1999-2007 - in General Medicine initially then in psychiatry. The jobs were mostly long term/short locums and was an affiliate member of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. That was until I was fired from Worcestershire Mental Health Trust in 2007 due to the continuing harassment by the GMC which has continued now since the year 2000.

4. I have been subjected to 3 complaints. All complaints were by oddballs who clearly had nothing better to do. They were all related to my written work. I have had no patient complaints or complaints from Trusts.

a. 2000 - the GMC instigated a complaint all on their own. They called it a "discreet inquiry.

b. 2003. The GMC instigated a complaint made by Dr Tim Woodman and his colleagues on Doctors.net.uk. It was regarding "defamation". The GMC later admitted in correspondence dated 2007 that they could not try defamation. Nevertheless, I was subjected to 6 months of investigation. This was due to the fact I had instigated litigation against the GMC which was subsequently won in the first application then settled. The complaint was taken up by the GMC to dissuade me from litigation. It didn't work because I reversed the complaint on Woodman and was cleared.

c. 2007. Complaint made by Penny Mellor and Fiona Woolard due to my undercover work on the David Southall case. Instigated by the GMC because I threatened to judicially review their decision in the Professor Griffiths complaint [ listed above] during that time. The two allegations were that I linked to a public document and that I called myself a "psychiatrist" without being on the specialist register. Due to the instigation of the complaint, I was fired from Worcestershire Mental Health Trust. The GMC were to amusingly call a number of doctors "Psychiatrists" [who were not on the specialist register] in their Press Releases. Indeed, their own barrister called me a "psychiatrist". I was cleared in September 2007 after nearly six months of investigation. The case examiners ruled that I could call myself a psychiatrist. The complaint arose because Penny Mellor has a total lack of understanding about medical matters. The matter was subject to a judicial review for which we won permission in 2008.

I am currently administratively erased from the GMC Register. There are many rumours about this but none of them are true.

Therefore, I should reiterate that I have never had any sanction against me from the GMC. I don't know where JD got that idea but I suspect there are various rumours from suspension to being struck off circulating around. It is probably because no one takes the time to read the chronology or perhaps I talk about the GMC so much that people by default feel they must have sanctioned me.

I do though have a ruined Fitness to Practise record, a collection of complaints made by the half crazed Doctors.net.uk posters [which I recently discovered] and the half baked Penny Mellor that were never taken up by the GMC. Nevertheless, I trust these people will be blocked by the vexatious complaints policy on Rule 4. I now have the entire collection which is a bit like a Imelda Markos collection really. Fools often rush in and never actually take their time to understand what they do. This Fitness to Practise record will remain for the term of my natural life. I trust that makes all those interested parties with a vendetta happy.

I think the worst the GMC can say is that I was guilty of writing :) material contrary to the vested interests of the medical establishment.

In conclusion, I should say that the NHS gets the doctors it fights for. It didn't fight for me therefore it is essentially their loss. There maybe a certain sense of arrogance regarding that but there we go. Cest la vie - failing systems often have no insight. That isn't my concern at anymore - because I essentially did my job as a doctor and following the closure of Ward 87 in 2005 which I instigated, I have probably saved many thousands of people. Despite the consistant lack of support from the medical fraternity, I can now say - that I was right and they were wrong - and now none of them have anything to say. They all sit their in silence. While, the GMC has effectively terminated my working life, I think in the last decade I have done more than many doctors do in their entire working life. My working life was a lot longer than expected for a whistle blowing junior doctor. And that is the end of whistleblowing decade where one request for a drip set magnified into an attack on health policy, subsequent backlash on a whistleblower through the Trust and the GMC, endless litigation to clear the smears and finally the evidence that I was correct all along. Is North Staffordshire NHS Trust about to apologise for the number of people they killed. Of course, not. Are they about to apologise to me or even thank me. Of course, not - that is because wickedness is in their blood, they have an indifference to patient death. During the time of the ward's existence, numerous people died needlessly. We won't know how many because the patient's relatives were never told and the death rates were never calculated or kept.

I hope Pulse or JD will correct the slight error :). I hope they will anyway.

Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust - The Dead Zone.

While I have been quite inert about the ongoings at Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust, I have to say that it didn't surprise me at all. While everyone else has been running around excited, I have known about this Trust for sometime. It was the neighbouring Trust to North Staffordshire NHS Trust afterall. Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust was offered Foundation Status and North Staffordshire NHS Trust was offered University status. They both concealed their high death rates and their substandard services in order to obtain this status.

The Guardian quotes Sir Ian

"Sir Ian Kennedy, the commission's chairman, said: "This is a story of appalling standards of care and chaotic systems for looking after patients. Those are words I have not previously used in any report. There were inadequacies at almost every stage in the care of emergency patients. There is no doubt that patients will have suffered and some of them will have died as a result."

When Sir Ian was told about the issues on Ward 87, he ignored it. Indeed, until very recently, the Health Commission had no system for whistleblowers to report patient neglect.

From: <Howard.Davis@healthcarecommission.org.uk>

To: <drrita.pal@virgin.net>

Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 5:59 PM

Subject: Healthcare Commission

Dear Dr Pal,

Thank you for your Email which I read yesterday. I was sorry to read ofyour experiences.The Healthcare Commission's complaints remit derives from the NHS (Complaints) Regulations 2004. The regulations are primarily focused on patients, the family and friends and ther public. The issues you raise would appear to be in the context of your employment and so would likely be outwith the complaints remit. At the same time I note that it might be that you are seeking to bring your concerns to the attention wider HealthcareCommission. With this in mind, I have forwarded your Email to the Commission's Serious Service Failures and Investigations branch.
I hope this is helpful.


Howard Davis - Team Leader
Complaints
Healthcare Commission
> Peter House
> 5th Floor, Oxford Street
> Manchester
> M1 5AN
........................................

Thanks Sir Ian. So much for your post Bristol Inquiry systems! And if Sir Ian wants to read Steve Bolsin's report on Ward 87, here it is. The summary of the information is below this post. It should be noted that Sir Ian did nothing to investigate the wider data of the patients on that and other wards at North Staffordshire NHS Trust.

In the year 1999, I warned that the hospitals in the Midlands were ending patients lives needlessly. The Birmingham papers featured the issue. The Department of Health took no action at the time. A letter to Frank Dobson which exists from me to the Department of Health and the General Medical Council was never responded to. When the various issues were reported to the General Medical Council, the Department of Health tells us that the GMC asked whether I should be investigated for unprofessional allegations. During that time period Professor Rod Griffiths was in charge of the area. He did nothing. And that is why you see the status we have now.

Patient deaths were only noticed at Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust because the patients raised the issue. If they had not, the patients would continue to die. The other matter remains that death rate was only recorded when complaints were made. Otherwise, the matter would never have been monitored or noted. The Department of Health has already confirmed that recording death rates is not compulsory. Indeed, Ben Bradshaw tells us that death rate should not be recorded because it is " unreliable". Of course, Ben Bradshaw is full of more hot air than Richard Branson's balloon. Alan Johnson's fake apology today was laughable. Perhaps he should tell us how many patients are dying in the area - actually lets widen it - how many patients are dying in the NHS.

The media have got excited of course. I don't blame them. Shame their stories were consistently neglected for the last 8 years. Perhaps the media could have prevented some deaths. Of course, we can be sure that the death toll is about 4 times that quoted by the Health Commission.

Evidence

Medical Division Memorandum
Ward 87
From Ms Teresa Fenech
Directorate Manager for Infectious Diseases City General Hospital Stoke on Trent.
Reference TF/CLS/005
18th May 1999

Point 3

" I informed you that I had undertaken an audit of every single patient on the ward the previous week. I identified a serious lack of baseline and routine observations. In the case of some patients there was also clearly a breach of policy and there was an apparent lack of misunderstanding from the staff of the importance of such issues. I informed you that in my opinion the level of care demonstrated for some patients on the ward at the time of my audit was nothing short of negligent"

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

In May 1999, the Medical Division received an Adverse Incident Form from Ward 87 which identified a malfunction of a defibrillator used during resuscitation. A two stage investigation was began.

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

A letter from Dr Colin Campbell to Dr John Green, Clinical Director at City General Hospital Stoke on Trent, read as follows: (CAC/ AR/LET 2nd December 1998) Point 2 (first page)

"To summarise other discussions that we have had on the medical PRHOs, I think that the following should be addressed within the directorate as a matter of urgency - (2) They should have proper clinical supervision at all times and help from a more experienced colleague... should always be available (The New Doctor GMC), On discussion with several of them they are still working without immediate supervision for significant periods.”

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

2. 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".

Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust was never as Bad as North Staffordshire NHS Trust

So here are the reports for Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust.

Here is the report from the Health Commission.

Of course, none of it was as bad as its neighbour, the rogue North Staffordshire NHS Trust. There were so many deaths, they simply shut me up from the media in the year 2000. Don't believe me? Just ask the Department of Health. They shut Ward 87 to cover up the deaths. We know they did, they know they did. To date no one has investigated the broader data of Ward 87 or related wards. I am very grateful to my blogging colleagues who have had the guts to link to the evidence of Ward 87. The rest of the media seem to be rather cowardly. No skin of my nose of course. You get the service you fight for.

Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust tells us all that patient power can achieve everything, the word of a doctor is valued as nothing. I am sick and tired of the Health Commission and the NHS Ombudsman. I have nothing more to say on this aspect.

GMC Legal Roulette

The General Medical Council can be called a thief. According to the Theft Act, the following definition is provided.

— (1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.

I actually do not have the time to blog but I am here at about 5 am in the morning examining the concepts of theft of a doctors career by the General Medical Council. Anyone who works for the General Medical Council engages in the behavior of intentionally depriving a doctor of their livelihood.

Yesterday, a surgical junior doctor met the GMC legal team in court. They had come well prepared. No doubt Mark Shaw QC went for his £500 trip to the boys room [ plus VAT] and no doubt Lesley Morgan and Paul Hylton neatly prepared the GMC bundles, courtesy of GMC subscription fees. QC time is expensive and no one questions that. Time is money and money is time.

Apparently, the GMC's costs were about £18,000 but they were prepared to be civil and plant a large amount of £4000 plus VAT on the head of the junior doctor yesterday. Apparently, they were being kind. Of course, those of us who are seasoned GMC observers know that the GMC does not roll out Mark Shaw QC unless they are in the shit. It is Shaw who pulls them out using his debonair good looks and his dastardly charm. It is often amazing what you can do with a good Saville Row suit although I have no idea whether Shaw wears such things but he should. A good devouring of a junior doctor is done with Chianti and a Saville Row suit. He should know that by now.

I suspect that £4000 plus VAT must have felt like a trickle of kindness from Mark Shaw QC. Something he can do to a person he perceives as a beggar. Because he no doubt perceives all doctors as beggars because they beg for the return of their livelihood from him. He can stand there in all his powers and look down on us mortals. He can judge us with his own brand of justice. He can say that disclosing all complaints to every employer in the land on the doctors CV is justice. Nothing like this happens to any other profession.

As I expected, the team flattened the daylights out of the surgical junior doctor but we have some learning points from this escapade. We learned that they flatten doctors for a living, we learned that what Mark Shaw QC says, the courts believe without question, we learned that Mark Shaw QC can look upon a violation of human rights and simply walk away.

We learned that Mark Shaw QC can justify why not to take action against doctors guilty of forgery, fraud, deception, negligence and killing a small boy called Robbie Powell but he argues why a doctor who wrote intemperate emails to the Royal College of Surgeons should be left with a warning on his record. In Shaw's world, a doctor who writes intemperate emails is worth sanctioning but doctors who have killed a patient aren't worth sanctioning. Let us therefore see who Mark Shaw QC protected . Perhaps Mark Shaw QC calls that " protecting patients".

" We also found that there was some evidence that the GP's medical notes had been altered, sufficient to prosecute certain individuals for offences of forgery and perverting the course of justice. However we concluded that it was no longer in the public interest to prosecute those offences because of the passage of time and earlier CPS decisions"

" The medical evidence does suggest negligence in the treatment given by Dr Michael Williams on the 11 April. Dr Williams position is made worse by the fact he had the medical notes in front of him and had read the letter from Dr Forbes, which specifically raised the possibility of adrenal insufficiency. The contents of Dr Williams referral letter suggest he was aware after Robbie had died that he had made a mistake and should have picked up the signs of the condition. Although the decision to refer was correct, the failure to refer immediately was a bad mistake but not such as to allow us to prove manslaughter to the criminal standard. There would also be problems in proving that Dr William's negligence was a substantial cause of death because of the cumulative subsequent negligence of Drs Boladz, Hughes and Flower. We concluded that any prosecution of Dr Williams for manslaughter would fail"

"The key aspects of Dr Boladz's examination on the 15th April appear to be the fact that Robbie was too weak to walk unaided, he had been unwell for some days and was showing obvious signs of weight loss. He therefore should have made an immediate referral to hospital and there is no doubt that such a referral would have saved Robbie's life. We have concluded that Dr Boladz should have recognised signs of dehydration. From the medical reports, this appears to be the key factor in determining whether Dr Boladz should have recognised Robbie was so seriously ill and that he needed immediate hospitalisation. The medical opinions do not establish this point sufficiently, to prove that the risk of death was so obvious at this time to enable us to successfully prosecute Dr Bloladz for manslaughter. The case for manslaugher against Keigh Hughes runs into much the same difficulties. On the 16th April Robbie was closer to death and it may be presumed that the signs of dehydration would have been more apparent than they had been for Dr Boladz, The evidence suggests that Dr Hughes failure to make an emergency referral was negligent. Robbie would have survived if admitted to hospital at this point and we can therefore argue that Dr Hughes negligence was a substantial cause of death. The key issue there was whether there was a obvious risk to death that should have been recognised by any competent GP......

"There is evidential basis for saying that Dr Nicola Flower was grossly negligent in her management of Robbie's illness on 17th April. It is the case for both the 3.30pm and the 5.30pm consultations. At both times the proper course of action was an emergency referral to the hospital and there was clear evidence to suggest that the risk of Robbie dying would have been obvious to any reasonably competent general practitioner. We reached this conclusion, not by assuming that Dr Flower should have recognised Addison's disease, but because she failed to recognise a seriously ill child who needed immediate hospitalisation. Having reached this conclusion, we then considered the issue of causation. We looked to determine whether we could prove that Robbie would have survived as an emergency after either consultation. If we were able to do so then we cold establish the causal link between Dr Flower's gross negligence and Robbie's death"

Of course, Shaw QC would play with his words and tell us all that he is a lawyer and he believes in justice and he knows the law .

We are all told to apologise if anything goes wrong or even if anything doesn't go wrong. In this surgical junior doctors case, two lawyers coaxed an apology to the General Medical Council implying that matters would get better for him. Having coaxed the apology, they took their money and disappeared into the sunset. Yesterday, the only argument the General Medical Council had on justifying a warning on this doctors registration was the fact that he had apologized. So, an apology according to the GMC's legal team was an admission of so called guilt and this apology gave them the right to violate a person's Article 10 [HRA] human rights. And there we have it, that is the price of an apology.

Dr Scot Jnr was nearly taken down by his own misguided apology. Dr Shrine Boardman decided to apologise as well. Morally this may be the correct thing to do but the General Medical Council sees it as an admission of guilt. That is what the case yesterday told us all.

The argument that is haunting Mark Shaw QC at the moment is whether a complaint can be taken up without a complainant. In R v GMC Ex Parte Powell he argued that a complaint could not be taken up without a complainant. Yesterday, he appeared to argue that a complaint can be taken up in the new rules but not the old rules. Then he has a minor problem of the fact that in Pal v GMC 2004, during the old rules, a complaint was taken up without a complainant.

So let us have a look at the old rules to see if Mark Shaw QC is right.

Here is the link to the pre 2004 rules.

6.—(1) Where a complaint in writing or information in writing is received by the Registrar and it appears to him that a question arises whether conduct of a practitioner constitutes serious professional misconduct the Registrar shall submit the matter to a medical screener.

And there we have it " information in writing" is of course not necessarily a formal complaint by a complainant. Mr Shaw provides no reason as to why the old rules or the new rules should be any different :). It just is because Mark Shaw says so.

I am therefore quite amused to see which direction Mr Shaw is planning on jumping at the next case which pins him down to this point. Surely, the GMC are being consistent?! Aren't they? :) Or do they argue whatever is convenient to them at the time and hope the world does not notice.

So, the surgical junior doctors livelihood is intentionally deprived. Doctors who lied, forged, killed continue to practise medicine without a warning.

To the General Medical Council, a series of ratty emails is far more dangerous to the public than killing a patient. That was the conclusion of the case [permission to refuse a judicial review of a warning] yesterday. This is what doctors pay the GMC for.

I find this fascinating, don't you?

The Spanish Inquisition

General Medical Council's Legal Team

" Fear, surprise, ruthless inefficiency"
Head Cardinal - Mark Shaw QC :)

The most interesting thing about doing what I do is observing the General Medical Council's legal team from afar. They amuse me greatly. Indeed, their activities are much like a Spanish Inquisition. Perhaps there are a number of Cardinal Fangs but it is rather fascinating that at present the General Medical Council is paying top Queens Counsel rates to fight against a number of Litigants in Persons [ who are doctors]. Mark Shaw QC appears to be a busy man. Rumour has it that his rates are £10,000 per day. Yes, we all choke at that figure but then Mark Shaw QC is good at what he does - arguing one argument in one GMC case and then arguing completely the opposite in another. If anyone wants to go Mark Shaw QC spotting, please do. I suspect he lives at the Royal Courts of Justice and probably doesn't have any qualms in ambushing his opponents. We are due to place Mark Shaw QC's cost schedules in many cases online soon.

A classic example is the case of Robbie Powell where he argued the opposite of what he has argued in other cases. He argued that Robbie Powell's case could not be investigated without a complaint or complainant. In a recent case, despite the fact the complainant withdrew the complaint in a surgeon's case, Shaw insists the GMC can take action without a complaint . Indeed, in this case, the GMC placed a warning on the doctors record despite the fact they didn't have a complaint [ or that in this case it had been withdrawn]. Does this mean the GMC acts one way in one case and completely the other way in others? Is Mark Shaw QC telling us that the GMC does not have to be consistent? Or are we just noticing the ways of Mark Shaw QC.

Fascinating, I thought. Mark Shaw QC was also famous in backing out last minute to Arpad Toth's case against the GMC a few years ago and the case only saw the light of day because Mary O Rourke QC wanted to put her case forward. The convenient thing about running NHS Exposed is that we have a lot of doctors emailing us the fascinating antics of Mark Shaw QC. Indeed, he is rather a interesting creature. Handsomely paid by all the blood, sweat and guts of hard working doctors who have no idea what Shaw does in their name. We must tell the world that Shaw is from Blackstone Chambers. It carries out a great deal of GMC prosecution work. Blackstones essentially protects the General Medical Council and no doubt overlooks all the violations of human rights committed by the GMC.

When I was against the General Medical Council has a litigant in person in 2004, I was ambushed with large numbers of documents all delivered last minute ie the night before. The two files they had apparently sent didn't even get to me until 2 days after the hearing. By then, I had successfully fought the judge and the opposition to adjourn the hearing. The GMC at the time advised the judge that we should keep going despite the fact that I did not receive the two bundles. So, Jane Collier and the Judge discussed matters between them but I was lucky, on this occasion, the judge had no alternative but to adjourn. For the privilege of winning my application, he slapped £2500 on me as costs. I paid that money then whipped it back from the GMC in a later hearing.

At the time it was a bit like a storm of paper flying everywhere - by fax and by email. I was bombarded to wrong foot me. This is a classical tactic the General Medical Council uses. They ambush you with miles of paperwork and expect you not to know your rights as a litigant in person. I do remember that Blackstone Chambers who is currently fighting on a number of human rights cases - told the court that I couldn't afford legal advisers so there was no point in waiting for me to get them. The following month the European Courts ruled that a lack of legal advice was a breach of Article 6. Blackstone Chambers also walked over to me in the guise of Jane Collier to offer me pages of Gatley on Libel. We told her we had already read the book. I suspect that startled her. In the year 2004, I was green, I was also naive but I had one thing going for me - I was bloody brave and I would do things that I couldn't even contemplate now. Even to this day, my relatives wonder how I pulled the adjournment off. I have no idea myself, it was just observation, learning to time things properly and knowing your fundamental rights. I suppose, in the end, I didn't let go - despite Collier's plan to ambush me with words. I might have respected her more if she had played a straight game. The GMC don't play straight, they always have to use their little tactics of ambush.

Well, one thing you have to hand over to the legal team at GMC Towers, in the case they have against a surgeon this weekend, they may win but we are all going to laugh at them later in the year. Afterall, mocking and parody is best served cold. This surgeon has frazzled the General Medical Council, they have hired two solicitors and one Queens Counsel against him. The team has victimised the doctor by instigating further frivolous complaints against him. One through their organisation of common purpose NCAS where his qualified documentation to their lawyers was used as further evidence of so called misconduct. This tells us all that the GMC won't even allow you to fight your corner without pouncing on you at every stage. So, you write a letter to a solicitor, and they take that letter and use it as supposed misconduct despite their guidance on free speech.

We have seen this interesting tactic as it was played on me in 2004, when I was due for a hearing, the General Medical Council commenced a frivolous complaint about me on material I had written on the internet. They dropped it a month after the judgment in 2004. By using their procedures as an instrument of victimisation, the General Medical Council is able to dissuade anyone from challenging them. Their aim is also to develop a finding of some sort to undermine the doctors original case. So essentially, if they say " Dr X is being investigated", the court will have the impression that the doctor is far from innocent. This is rather a clever tactic but we all know it exists. The Registrar who instigated the complaint in 2004, also amazingly instigated the complained dated 2007 during a challenge against Professor Rod Griffiths. The timing is just interesting - a bit like a tango. So in summary, the GMC commences an investigation during litigation. This phenomena has been seen in many doctors.

So yes, challenging the General Medical Council is an interesting escapade. Not many juniors do it because of the tactics used by the Council.

All we can say of the General Medical Council is this - we all know your game and now it is a spectator sport. Is anyone going to read this post, of course they are :). They are going to read it in the future as well.

Related link

Dr Crippen. How the GMC Spends Our Money.

44 Hallam Street. Nightmare on Hallam Street

The Irish Times reports the transformation of 44 Hallam Street. 44 Hallam Street was affectionately dubbed Nightmare on Hallam Street by many doctors.

"No 44 Hallam Street was used by the GMC to hold hearings, in addition to those held in Euston Road and Manchester. Historically it also housed administrative functions and was the only location where hearings were held until late 2001. The GMC finally moved out in December 2006"

Field Fisher Waterhouse, the GMC's well paid rather fat lawyers know only too well where the skeletons are. The bizarre incompetence exhibited by the GMC can only have reached its dysfunctional heights because the organisation remained unaccountable for many years. The madness of the General Medical Council is truly astounding, of course you have to see it to believe it. Those who have seen it with their own eyes understand that doctors have died needlessly within the procedures. Guilty doctors have not been given fair trials, innocent doctors have been fitted up but because these people are doctors, the public pays little attention to the daily violations of human rights that have taken place. Dr India writes of his Nightmare on Hallam Street.

I have no idea why anyone would wish to attend the GMC's local graveyard but perhaps I don't like dancing on doctors graves as they do.

SOUTHPORT CARES FOR CHILDREN

Today, I was asked to join Southport Cares For Children. This campaign has been spearheaded by the excellent and dynamic child health campaigner Cath Regan. The area is sadly represented by John Pugh MP of the Liberal Democrats. Cath and John have often been at loggerheads. This is because John Pugh is a large twit and Cath Regan talks sense.

It is of course time the Liberal Democrats resigned from office because they really do not serve any constructive purpose in Southport. Time to let Cath Regan take over. She has the brains to achieve the best care for Southport. The Liberal Democrats are currently sharing one brain cell between them. That must be difficult for John Pugh who never likes sharing anyway.

John Pugh MP is otherwise known as Mr Crinkle Chops. He states "Moving Southport forward". Actually, he has taken Southport and put it back into the dark ages. He has stooped to the lower depths than the best lizards in the cesspit and undermined/insulted and character assassinated the opposition. This is therefore a taste of his own medicine. Pugh has done nothing for the community since he was elected. He has tried to look pretty but when you are a Lib Dem, looking pretty is often impossible because they need more makeup than the average Salford Bint.

Brenda Porter PPC (the hardworking lady who is set to take away Mr Crinkly's job at the next election) and Margaret Brown, CARES Co Chair, are also opposing Lib Dem apathy in Southport and have been doing so since the NHS stole our services.

I have backed the above campaign since 2004. I must say it is the best executed campaign I have come across so far. No other campaign has been as long and sustained. They run a fantastic pressure group that has been very effective. Their website says

"Our campaign started when the NHS Trust decided to relocate our vital services for children and pregnant women to Ormskirk. This unbelievable decision is we believe totally unacceptable, highly dangerous to the patients involved and distressing to families in general. Southport is a large town built on the holiday industry which urgently needs these essential hospital services for visitors as well as the residents herein"

And that is what they did. They continued to fight for what they believed in. They have continued to campaign for the rights of patients who have been failed by the system. This is the latest.

I made my point that I am no longer a GMC Registered doctor. Pat Regan was very kind to me and said

"You are more a real doctor that 90 % of the pathetic jerks that I come across in this town alone with or without GMC say so.

So I guess I am in :) and am honoured to have been invited. I hope to assist in campaign and contribute the medical knowledge I have.

As for John Pugh MP and Tony Dawson - I can out argue both of you - any day and any time and on any subject. And it is very very true, I back Cath Regan 100 percent, always have and always will.

Dr Peter Jeffreys, Labour Member, GMC Henchman. Please can you resign.

GMC Panellist. Doing It Stalin's Way

It is a dark day in GMC Towers when their human rights abuses are not so secret anymore. Grame Catto moaned about bloggers but of course it is the bloggers that will raise these human rights abuses and not the media.

Here is a blog well written by Dr Helen Bright, Consultant Psychiatrist. We would all like to know what happened to Dr Helen Bright at the General Medical Council. I was shocked to hear the farce the GMC termed a "Hearing". In my view, we should all place the transcripts up online and see what the GMC has been up to. We would also like to know who was drinking large quantities of alcohol on the panel. There are terrible tales of GMC panelists in general. One doctor reported that the panel had wanted to go and watch television. Others have reported that panelists fall asleep. What we really want to know is this - what is the true extent of human rights abuses within the General Medical Council.

This isn't the first time the General Medical Council has fitted up doctors. The actual problems about fitting doctors up is the curious nature of the behavior patterns exhibited by the General Medical Council officials. It is a form of institutional dysfunctional behavior, much like a child who has never been held accountable or admonished.

So are we all just bad doctors or is the GMC unable to function in a fair and transparent way. Of course, Graeme Catto cannot avoid responsibility for all these cases. He may turn a blind eye but one day someone in the right places will ask the question " Why did you not raise the alarm Professor Catto"? Is it your ethical and moral duty to raise the alarm when an organisation is harming people. Are you always going to sit silently and say nothing? How bad does it have to get before someone says something? Do we have to hear about another Debra Shepherd who committed suicide following a GMC investigation?

While Helen Bright is admonished by the General Medical Council, what of Robbie Powell's doctors. Robbie Powell's doctors have lied, cheated and ended the life of a little boy, there are no alert letters on them, there has never been a suspension and they have continued quite happily. So why are they able to practise quite happily and Dr Bright isn't able to work freely? Can Finlay Scott answer that question?

In the case of Helen Bright, it seems that the creepy man at the centre of the story is a GMC-ite called Peter Jeffreys. Jeffreys has sat on many panels at the GMC. Here he is providing his own particular brand of justice. Here he is again. He was also the Medical Director where Helen Bright worked. In fact he was instrumental in reporting her to the GMC. There are many instances where Jeffreys is paid very well to be a henchman in the employment of GMC Towers. Here is his entry

"Consultant, Psychiatry of Old Age (Northwick Park Hospital - employer CNWL Mental Health NHS Trust). On specialist register for Old Age Psychiatry and General Psychiatry. Member BGS (British Geriatrics Society); MDU : Labour Party; Alzheimer's Society; MIND. Fellow RCP (London); Fellow RC Psychiatrists. Chair London S12 (Mental Health Act 1983) Approval Panel. Lay Partner Health Professions Council. Second Opinion Appointed Doctor : Mental Health Act Commission. Medical Advisor Harrington Horticultural Training Scheme, London N6"

So, Mr Creep serves on the Medical Defence Union, is a member of the Labour Party and influences all sorts of things. The GMC gives him the power to violate the rights of doctors by vindictively reporting them to the GMC on frivolous charges.

The Times reported as follows

"Dr Bright also swore at Peter Jefferys, her medical director, during disciplinary proceedings which ended in her dismissal. She then threatened to sue Dr Jefferys for £2 million if he did not amend a job reference which referred to the incident with the nun"

So does that mean, if we all tell Peter Jeffreys to F off out of the General Medical Council, he is going to discipline us? So lets try that again, Dr Jeffreys, we think your ability to conduct yourself in a rational and logical manner is impaired. In our view, you also have an attitudinal problem and an inability to recognise your own flaws. The GMC should fire you forthwith. Hows that? Oh, and while we are at it can we call you the henchman of the totalitarian regime or you may prefer the term Despot. Actually, I prefer the terms " A Grubby Little Despot". Clearly all this power has got to Peter's head. No doubt he is skulking around trying to report more doctors to the GMC.

Someone should complain about Peter to the General Medical Council.

For avoidance of doubt, Helen Bright has no mental illness.

Worcestershire Mental Health Trust Partnership

I have been emailed a number of times regarding the following link. Having read it, I confirm that all documentation there is accurate.

Common Purpose Spotting. NHS and GMC.

The Face of Common Purpose

A few days ago, I wrote about Sir Cyril Chantler's association with the secretive organization Common Purpose. Sir Cyril Chantler was a GMC Member for Standards and Ethics in 2003. Today, I found an interesting piece in the Health Service Journal.

"An innovative leadership development programme is helping managers connect with people they would not ordinarily meet by bringing together diverse groups of people from the private, public and non-profit sectors for unique learning experiences"

"The aim of the programmes, run by training organisation Common Purpose, is to give leaders the skills, the connections and the vision they need to lead more effectively, and to push them to extend their influence beyond their own organisation, locality and culture"

"Chris Simmonds is general manager of the Medical Practice in Doncaster. Chris attended a Common Purpose programme five years ago, which inspired him to develop the practice in innovative ways."

The NHS Improvement Network features Common Purpose.

On the General Medical Council there is an entry for Mr A K Devani listed by Dr Obi [see below]

The Common Purpose Graduate declaration was subsequently removed in the entry at the GMC.

Mr A K Devani, Teachers Certificate, Diploma Community & Race Relations, Graduate Common Purpose, Lay
Former Executive Director, Racial Equality Council. Member Institute of Advisors. Member Employment Tribunal, University Court, Loughborough University. Race Relations Advisor/Assessor: Home Office. Lay Professional British Association for Counselling & Psychotherapy. Member East Midlands Regional Assembly. Member Sentencing Advisory Panel Ministry of Justice (MOJ). Associate East Midlands Regional Equality Consortium (EMREC).

GMC disclosure damages careers, livelihoods and reputations

Does Martin Walker hate the GMC because
his girlfriend ran off and married Finlay Scott?

Thankyou to the doctor who left this link. I think this is rather fascinating really. I know the General Medical Council and their barristers at Blackstone Chambers often argue the opposite. ie that the there is no effect of an investigation on a doctor's livelihood.

Nevertheless, here is the admission that GMC cases threaten doctors employment.

'Those cases threaten doctors' employment and allege more serious issues about the doctor's practice because the employers know more about it,' said Mr Philip.

Finlay Scott is currently in court fighting a case that crows about the fact that no harm is done to a doctors employment by a case at GMC Towers. Of course, the more astute of us who go GMC document spotting noticed the following quote :-

Paragraph 73 of Finlay Scott's statement [ Shipman Inquiry] reads as follows

"The disclosure by the GMC to third parties of information about doctors whose fitness to practise is being investigated was a source of some difficulty until 2000, when matters were put on a statutory footing at the GMC’s request. On the one hand, the GMC recognised that its duty to protect patients required, in certain circumstances, the disclosure of information about a GMC investigation to those responsible locally for the doctor. On the other hand, the GMC was very aware of the damage that could be caused to a doctor’s reputation, career and livelihood through disclosure of information about allegations that had not been substantiated and might in due course prove to be unfounded. That this was an uncertain and complex area of law increased the difficulties we faced in making judgments about disclosure in individual cases”.

Dedicated to Finlay Scott and his £10,000 lawyers, one of whom can't even tell the difference between a blog URL and a website URL.

General Medical Council Committee Members

James Landon tells me the General Medical Council have discovered my Twitter Account today.I wonder whether GMC Towers ever do any work at all. Perhaps all their time is spent looking me up on the internet to see what I have written about them. That is when they are not sinking in court against Will Powell. Ah well, as Angus Dei would say, what a piss poor organisation with a piss poor reputation. By the way, on a side line note, I think Angus Dei is fabulous and if I wasn't a taken woman, I would probably catch him in my fishnets and marry him. We won't tell him that though. That is rather a huge secret.

I note the excellent Liz Miller has followed up rumours on the internet about me and has kindly written a blog. I am honoured. Miller knows about the GMC's hounding of me. She also knows that the GMC have tried everything to discredit me. In their tiny minds, they think that discrediting me will stop people reading what I write. They also have this strange idea that I am motivated by money. Perhaps that is what they are motivated by.

Henry North London is always great. He has done so well over the past few weeks and I am really proud to have him as a good friend. Thanks HNL for everything always. You are the best and yes, I will be your wife at scattered times when your parents require it. At least I am not a female asian GP who is going to lie in a missionary position eh. I have read the Karma Sutra so don't worry. Upside down is fine for me.

By the way, if any doctors or patients reading this, Dr Varma and I are writing up a submission for the UN and the European Commissioner of Human Rights related to the violation of human rights by the General Medical Council. Please email me with a 1-2 page submission of your case [ can be done anonymously]. We need as many as possible. Thankyou to all the doctors and members of the public who have contributed so far. Please email me at ritasaraswatipal@gmail.com

Sir Cyril Chantler, Common Purpose and Media Standards Trust

Common Purpose has been under fire of late. For those who don't know much about common purpose, it is described here. The website that exposes the organisation is written by the very intelligent Brian Gerrish. He states ' and it is worth reading this intro"

"By blurring the boundaries between people, professions, public and private sectors, responsibility and accountability, CP encourages graduates to believe that as new selected leaders, CP graduates can work together, outside of the established political and social structures, to achieve this paradigm shift or CHANGE. The so called "Leading Outside Authority". In doing so, the allegiance of the individual becomes 're-framed' on CP colleagues and their NETWORK"

It is also worth watching this video.

Common Purpose is run by Julia Middleton. It is essentially a shadowy organisation that functions to ensure leaders in the land are trained in ensuring systems in our communities don't work. The other arm of this organization is called the Media Standards Trust . Why is this important?

Well, Witchdoctor tells us a great deal about Sir Cyril Chantler and his links. She picks out the Orwells Prize . If Witchdoctor has her magic spectacles she will note that the Orwell Prize is administered by the Media Standards Trust. Hey Presto, Sir Cyril Chantler is there as an MST Board member. For those who don't know, Lis Paice disclosed that Sir Cyril was on the Chair at DNUK [ Doctors.net.uk]. So, Sir Cyril has an allegiance to Common Purpose. The list on MST is extremely interesting because it also consists of Sue Stapley, the person who sold Sally Clark's case to the world but kept her alcoholism out of it so we all think she is an angel.

Anyhow, in conclusion it is rather disturbing that someone with an allegiance to Common Purpose was also Chairman of the Standards and Ethics Committee of the General Medical Council. Then again he was also Chairman of the Shared Medical Record Committee of NHS Connecting for Health. So, two failing organisations had Sir Cyril Chantler on their board. Interesting isn't it?

Perhaps someone should ask the General Medical Council whether they take courses with Common Purpose?

Dr Scot Jnr. The Cosy Chats Between Deans

Dr Scot Jnr's saga is alive and well at the Dark Towers. For all those who don't know the story, please do follow it here. The fascinating David Patterson from the Dark Towers emailed me recently and enclosed the following emails [see below]. It is interesting to note the emails below between Professor Hemlock and Plaice. The document from Lis Paice refers to Sir Cyril Chantler. Sir Cyril was on the GMC's Standards Committee in 2002. His famous work was A View from the General Medical Council. It is clear that he spends his time telling us all what is proper speech. Of course, what was proper speech in his heddy days [ a long time ago] isn't necessarily a la mode now.

It now explains the relationship between the Doctors Only website and the General Medical Council. It also explains why there is a direct line for complaints against doctors who post there. I speak of course of the complaint against the late Dr Shepherd. This is a nice neat family who engage in fitting up junior doctors for a living. As for the General Medical Council - I know what you did in the summer of 2001-2003. It has all come back to haunt you :).

This is not the first complaint Prof Paice has made. One wonders why she would question Dr Scot's mental state? Does this happen to everyone?


-----Original Message-----
From: Gillian Needham
Sent: 19 July 2008 10:18
To: PAICE, Elisabeth
Subject: Re: FW: DNUK
Thanks Lis. Quite shocking.
I will discreetly pursue.
Thank you.
Gx
>>> "PAICE, Elisabeth" 19/07/08 09:08 >>>
Dear Gillian
I thought I should bring the letter below to your attention. It is a posting on DNUK from a doctor whose DNUK profile identifies him as xxxxxxx, an StR year 3 in general surgery. He signs off as 'from Inverness' so I imagine he is one of yours. I read the DNUK fora from time to time and came across his posting in the 'air your views to the media' forum, which clearly states it is open to journalists.It is therefore intended as a public statement of his views. I wrote to Sir Cyril Chantler, who is the chair of the DNUK board, as soon as I saw it. It has now been modified with all the scatological languiage removed. I have been assured that further steps will be taken to stop this kind of behaviour. I thought you should be aware, as you may feel that this posting, which was up for at least 5 days before it was altered, is evidence of unprofessional behaviour in one of your trainees. He may of course be unwell. I would be grateful if you would not circulate this further than absolutely necessary, as the fewer people read it the better.
Kind regards
Lis

Catto Scott Power

Yesterday's Doctors

I have merged the name of Professor Catto with that of Finlay Scott. This is because Finlay Scott drives Professor Catto. It is called control. Catto is actually a good guy but it is often extremely difficult to function in a environment where Finlay's teeth are there ready to snap at him. Rumour has it that Finlay sharpens his teeth every day. My internal sources at the General Medical Council tell me this. Then my internal sources at the Dark Tower tell me many things about the General Medical Council including their overt hatred of me :).

Today, the excellent Liz Miller pointed me to her post. Miller had gone to Tomorrows Doctors . This was a consultation held by the Dark Tower. I was invited but as a matter of protest, I refuse to set foot into GMC Towers. I have my reasons for this. In my view, no organisation who ends the lives and livelihoods of so many doctors deserve to be visited. I gave my suggestions for Tomorrows Doctors via email. I also told them if they didn't value my contributions then they could take me off the mailing list. The GMC still have me on their mailing list. My view on Tomorrows Doctors is this - we need to train our new doctors for practical medicine not sissy medicine. By sissy medicine - I mean intellectual discussion and having no idea about how to deal with patients.

Miller does a hilarious review of her view from the hill. This is what she says

"Mr Catto presided over a Day of Consultation, Introspection and Self-congratulation from the General Medical Council discussing Tomorrow’s Doctors. He managed to orchestrate a full days navel gazing, with one lay speaker and without a single mention of Tomorrow’s Patient. Apart from a couple of token medical students it was a day out with the over-60’s branch of Saga’s Scottish physicians. Not a surgeon in sight! Rather like Tomorrow’s World running a programme on Stone Age Britain, Mr Catto told us what he and his cronies thought about Tomorrow’s Doctors, and let us comment on his ideas. All boxes were ticked"

Well, this is what I don't understand, why do the GMC have to congratulate themselves. It should be the other way around, people should be congratulating them. If there are no congratulations then the GMC must be doing something wrong. Well, we know they are doing something wrong.

Miller then goes onto make a very valid point

"Tomorrow’s Doctors are employees of the State and governed and managed by the NHS. They will know no other life. Technicians and public servants trained to work in the NHS with no jobs and no mercy for dissenters in a world where your doctor places the needs of the State above those of private individuals. The doctor acts as henchman, reporting dissident colleagues and disobedient patients in equal measure.

Tomorrow’s Doctors will treat patients according to Good Medical Practice. Good Medical Practice is the GMC’s version of Standard English Medical Practice. It may be a key document, but it is key to the Soma intoxicated chemical future of Huxley’s Brave New World"

By doing this, the profession is being cloned. No differences of opinion, no different people, no deviation from the normal will be accepted. The sad fact of the world is that everyone is different. I am positive that the General Medical Council wants to modernise but is advised by dinosaurs who have no idea about modern medicine, young doctors or the public.

Liz then makes a fascinating observation

"Mr Catto will be remembered for peacefully transforming a profession from imperfect autonomous medical practitioners to docile State Employees working for a Monopoly Employer. He has abolished GMC elections, overseen reorganisation of the National Health Service, given the Nation’s medical records to the government and handed over 150 years of independence to the first person who offered him a knighthood. He could do this because, like Anurin Bevan before him, he stuffed the doctors’ mouths with gold. UK doctors and GPs are the best paid in Europe and with some US exceptions, in the world".

Now, you have to sit silently and read that then you discover that Liz is actually quite right. Of course, a monopoly is illegal but then Bill Gates knows that. What I found hilarious was this sentence

"There was one light-hearted moment before Mr Catto fessed up to his big secret. He let out his concerns about the impact of the Internet and the blogocracy. (Well done Dr Rita Pal!)"

Poor Prof Catto. I know, I accept that the reason he is bald is because he worries that a few doctors and patients have given the GMC a run for their money. And it is probably a great shame that the PR machine cannot control us but then they have to understand that we are all the product of and opposite reaction to their behaviour. We should have all been dead after the GMC's feelers but we aren't dead. We are all alive, stronger, well and out in force.

The GMC's problem then becomes this, what do they do with the people they themselves have created. The GMC has no solution for this phenomena.

I say that because strength comes from suffering and trauma until one day you fear nothing. I say that to Dr India as well. I call it training by the GMC. After you have fought the GMC and won, no one else is a threat. I think Dr India should understand this acutely because Dr India is going to win. Lately, he told me that Christopher Kelly, the rogue GMC assessor was taken off his case. The GMC did not force him to see Kelly again. For anyone that is one step for mankind. Kelly can go back to what he does best, multiplying.

The trauma caused by the GMC teaches you self development, it teaches you to be tough, it teaches you to be self disciplined and it teaches you to be better than them. Facing the GMC engages your survival instincts like no other organisation. The GMC is a bit like being in a mental gym. You either survive it or you die. Dying isn't a option so you take the other option.

If the GMC are worried about the internet, or worried about what we all write. The GMC should understand that I as former doctor do not appreciate the manhandling of my friends and colleagues. While they cannot speak out, I speak out for them. I speak out because there has to be a historical recording of the violations of human rights and civil liberties by this organisation. Finlay Scott should be tried for human rights violations and one day hopefully a group of doctors well get together, get a class action going and shut the GMC down.

If all the doctors investigated the GMC could place their experiences anonymously online, the GMC would be out of business in 1 year.

Cujo from the Stephen King Movie. Bloghounds Changes Its Picture

Since my last post where Bloghounds were accused of dog cruelty, they have opted for another picture of a hound. The above dog looks a bit like its been possessed by the ghost in the movie Exorcist and written up by the horror flick writer Stephen King. It gives us all bloggers the message " Join Us because We are the Evil Ones". I think the image is a bit unfortunate as the eyes look glassy and the mini teeth look like its coming to gobble you up. Even its ears aren't symmetrical telling us all that it is probably some stunted crossbreed - between Cujo and Dracula's WereWolf.

Just to ensure everyone knows about Bloghounds - they never respond to reasonable questions and they have currently refused to co-operate with the Data Protection Act request. Their half possessed blogger Calum Carr admitted recently to posting crap on this blog. In my view, it is run by little narrow minded dwarves with even smaller minds.

Essentially, would I advise anyone to join blog hounds - of course I wouldn't. Would I say that they are rated well, nope! And am I being petty about this - probably :). In the end though, the sooner bloghounds gets their paws off the blogsphere, the better it is.

Afterall, its a tin pot organisation with a possessed dog as its mascot. What more can we expect from people who advocate that dogs should be placed in front of fans and left on their own.

The Lying Master

Trusts Negotiate with the GMC.
How to Lie Convincingly Together

Following the last post, I had a doctor email me about performance assessment at GMC Towers. I hadn't considered performance assessments there, because , quite frankly I have never got that far. I have often spent a substantial amount of time robustly challenging the General Medical Council so they understand quite bluntly that I am not a walkover. For that they hate my guts but then I suspect ever doctor hates the GMC's guts.

The one thing all doctors have been waiting for is a report to the police regarding the GMC's lying ways. Many doctors have tried to report them in the past. In retrospect, I should have reported them under the Harassment Act 1997 but I decided to wait and watch. The important aspect about the GMC is this. They are unable and unwilling to play fair. When their fibbing habits are discovered, they then try to conceal the evidence or even fabricate the evidence. It is hard to imagine but everyone needs to watch the GMC in action. Cold, subtle, snide, lizard like. Life is peachy for them, their legal advisers are paid masses of finances from the doctors subscription pot. Their legal advisers simply defend their client, the GMC. The doctors never hold them accountable. It has carried on to such an extent that it is now a dictatorship.

If you catch the GMC lying, you can be sure that Finlay Scott will not sign the piece of paper verifying the lie. I once tested this out with Graeme Catto. Statements were made in the Professor Griffiths complaint. I asked Catto to sign a statement of truth and he just would not. They are quite an amusing organisation to watch. It is a bit like a good spectator sport. They often fall into their own minor traps if they don't know whats going on. Varma and I for instance stripped them down by making them admit that they did not collect ethnicity statistics data. Having made them admit that, the matter was floated over to the CRE who forced them to collect this data in accordance to the Race Relations Act. So, it is rather amazing how a regulatory body had not collected data for a hundred years or more but yet continues to sprout rubbish about their processes being free from discrimination. Free from discrimination? Has anyone heard such a load of rubbish?

In their eyes, they assume that all doctors are not as clever as them but in reality we all know what a dreadfully nasty organisation they are. Dr India yesterday told me that " They can't even formulate the allegations correctly". Another doctor told me " They keep moving the goalposts so we have no idea whats going on".

During performance assessments, one doctor stated

"Do you know that they cheat with every performance assessment. So outrageously as if they were completely in outer space and so shamelessly as if they would be absolutely sure that it would anyway not be challenged. They contort and manipulate evidence, they prove that they have no idea about medicine, they are putting statements of witnesses in the report which the witnesses never have made. Everybody should be warned not to agree to undergo a performance assessment!!!!!!! If they do not find anything else to knock somebody out, they arrange a performance assessment. No chance to contradict as there are 3 assessors against the poor doctor"

Of course, for any doctor facing the courts or facing a GMC hearing, what you need to do is persuade the otherside to write their statement of fibs on a statement of truth, you then need to contemplate reporting them to the police. The more doctors who report the GMC to the police will mean the more likely an investigation takes place. In many cases, the GMC and their legal team have flouted the law and twisted material to fit their own agenda. Then again, I guess you have to see the GMC lie to believe it. They lie quite convincingly and coldly. Their organisational persona is much like a cold calculated personality disordered serial killer. We all know the GMC devours innocent doctors and can't be bothered acting in the case of dishonest doctors.

For anyone who is interested, yes, I am busy collecting comparators, I collect most things about the GMC. I make it my business to know everything they do. That isn't because the GMC has in the past been embroiled with me a court case, it is really because I am disgusted at the way they treat the innocent and the guilty. Both deserve a fair hearing, that is one of the perks of living in a democratic society. I am about to discuss matters with the Human Rights Watch. The GMC is simply a polite version of Guantanamo Bay, it is the smiling serial killer of careers and so far it hasn't been held accountable. One day though they will be held accountable, the entire place will be investigated by the police and they will be completely disbanded. I look forward to the day, Finlay Scott is retired to greener pastures. He certainly would be less of a risk to the medical profession if he were to live in the country, preferably in a locked thatched cottage. Then again, in my book, Scott is directly responsible for any lies told in the GMC hearings. He doesn't think so of course because he would like the world to assume that all is well at GMC Towers. All isn't well, there are boxes and boxes of files, boxes of documents that detail how they all screwed innocent doctors and left them all to fend for themselves.

Essentially, the GMC chews you up in their procedures, spits you out and expects you to survive the devastation they cause. When you survive it, they think about how abnormal you are. When you don't survive it and you have hung yourself on a toilet chain, they say " ah we told you he was troubled" therefore we were "right". The fact remains, the General Medical Council frequently drive innocent doctors off the rails. One of them was Dr Debra Shepherd. The GMC are so cold and conceited, it is almost bordering on evil. I wouldn't be surprised if they sat on the side lines and rubbed their hands with glee and the fact they drove Debra Shepherd to suicide. People don't like talking about things like that, they think its a shocking admission that the GMC should be responsible for the fact that doctors are driven off the cliff.

I suspect they wonder why I haven't even walked to the cliff. Well, its because I don't like cliffs and I don't like the concept of death. In any case, I am around to hold the GMC accountable. Accountability comes in many ways. There is little in the courts, there is little in the world but as Scott and his cronies know, there is a mass of accountability by educating the public and educating doctors. It is the education of doctors and the public that will eventually abolish the General Medical Council. That is the message to The Lying Master and the Serial Killer of Medical Careers.