The General Medical Council Upholding Dishonesty So much for my lack of updates! I thought there would be no further updates but given this week has been one of the most intriguing weeks in GMC history, I am indeed fascinated. First there was Robbie Powell's case. Dr John Crippen featured it and I am grateful to him. We need some real doctors to feature material when whistleblowers just won't do. In that case, we saw the General Medical Council and the Defence Unions fight to defend the right to kill a small boy, defend the right for forge documents and defend the right to be dishonest. I wonder if that was a adequate use of membership money.
Indeed, I am fascinated to see that the General Medical Council blatantly misled the court. Having told the court that the General Medical Council was unable to take up complaints without a complainant, they forgot to mention their dirty little secret. Of course, the General Medical Council's dirty little secret is me. They investigated me without a complaint between the years 2000-2002. The GMC termed it a "discreet inquiry". I wonder if judges really like being misled in that way or whether the General Medical Council really thought they could get away with it. Anyway, I can understand the GMC lawyers who have had to carry around the many many bundles of files. Life must be tiring and frustrating especially having to defend the highlights of criminal behaviour. Amazing what people can do if paid enough money.
Much like the GMC ensures the defence unions sit on its back. The same appears when Trusts collude with them. It is truly a fascinating phenomena. The GMC investigations for junior doctors are much like this, GMC writes to Trust, Trust always sides with GMC. It doesn't actually matter how bizarre the ideas actually are, it is still so. The other issue that amuses me is that most will sink head first without observing the matter in great detail. Many doctors have experienced this at GMC hearings. I have never reached a hearing. There is a reason for that, firstly, I have a short principle - the General Medical Council and the Trusts are always bad guys. Even if they appear to be good, they are mostly bad when the chips are down. It is for this reason every doctor should adopt a zero tolerance policy. I believe Trusts assume that their power and money gives them the Trust to abuse. In my view, they are simply Trusts filled with people who mismanage most things. If one applies a little logic, it is often easy to see how many Trusts are simply dysfunctional. Communal bullying or victimisation is well known within the NHS. I often find it amazing that Trusts assume they can get away with everything. Of course, they can't get away with most things.
The General Medical Council has a well known trick to make a "lie" the "truth". What they do is make a statement, if you rebutt it and provide the evidence, they hire their henchmen or supporters to verify their statements. So, they practise the appearance of the "truth" ie in their minds, if many people say the same thing, it must be the truth. This is irrespective of the evidence. It is a interesting technique probably used in Nazi Germany. If many people lie together, it gives the appearance of the truth. This is called communical lying.
The other more interesting aspect about the General Medical Council is this - they call you dishonest, they don't expect you to defend it. They expect you to sit there and accept it. What they don't expect is evidence to defend yourself. When they are faced with that evidence, they gibber and flubber and finally run the other direction. Watching them run is often more entertaining then watching them stay around.
They run because in their mind's eye - time will give them a further opportunity to mount further lies. Someone mentioned that the GMC was like Guantanamo Bay. You stand there and say " Yes, I am innocent and here is the evidence". they say " Ah but we found this new aspect and we think you are guilty of that". You say " Ah but here is further evidence" - and they move the goalposts further. In the end, the doctor doesn't know what he is defending.
Recently, a doctor told me about his Interim Order Panel Hearing, on one set of allegations, his next IOP on a different set of allegations and then his Case Examiner assessment on yet another set of allegations - all on one set of events. This is a bizarre tactic by the GMC but nevertheless, this moving of the goalposts is classical of their activities. It is actually a breach of civil rights but I suspect everyone overlooks what the GMC actually does.
Indeed, I am fascinated to see that the General Medical Council blatantly misled the court. Having told the court that the General Medical Council was unable to take up complaints without a complainant, they forgot to mention their dirty little secret. Of course, the General Medical Council's dirty little secret is me. They investigated me without a complaint between the years 2000-2002. The GMC termed it a "discreet inquiry". I wonder if judges really like being misled in that way or whether the General Medical Council really thought they could get away with it. Anyway, I can understand the GMC lawyers who have had to carry around the many many bundles of files. Life must be tiring and frustrating especially having to defend the highlights of criminal behaviour. Amazing what people can do if paid enough money.
Much like the GMC ensures the defence unions sit on its back. The same appears when Trusts collude with them. It is truly a fascinating phenomena. The GMC investigations for junior doctors are much like this, GMC writes to Trust, Trust always sides with GMC. It doesn't actually matter how bizarre the ideas actually are, it is still so. The other issue that amuses me is that most will sink head first without observing the matter in great detail. Many doctors have experienced this at GMC hearings. I have never reached a hearing. There is a reason for that, firstly, I have a short principle - the General Medical Council and the Trusts are always bad guys. Even if they appear to be good, they are mostly bad when the chips are down. It is for this reason every doctor should adopt a zero tolerance policy. I believe Trusts assume that their power and money gives them the Trust to abuse. In my view, they are simply Trusts filled with people who mismanage most things. If one applies a little logic, it is often easy to see how many Trusts are simply dysfunctional. Communal bullying or victimisation is well known within the NHS. I often find it amazing that Trusts assume they can get away with everything. Of course, they can't get away with most things.
The General Medical Council has a well known trick to make a "lie" the "truth". What they do is make a statement, if you rebutt it and provide the evidence, they hire their henchmen or supporters to verify their statements. So, they practise the appearance of the "truth" ie in their minds, if many people say the same thing, it must be the truth. This is irrespective of the evidence. It is a interesting technique probably used in Nazi Germany. If many people lie together, it gives the appearance of the truth. This is called communical lying.
The other more interesting aspect about the General Medical Council is this - they call you dishonest, they don't expect you to defend it. They expect you to sit there and accept it. What they don't expect is evidence to defend yourself. When they are faced with that evidence, they gibber and flubber and finally run the other direction. Watching them run is often more entertaining then watching them stay around.
They run because in their mind's eye - time will give them a further opportunity to mount further lies. Someone mentioned that the GMC was like Guantanamo Bay. You stand there and say " Yes, I am innocent and here is the evidence". they say " Ah but we found this new aspect and we think you are guilty of that". You say " Ah but here is further evidence" - and they move the goalposts further. In the end, the doctor doesn't know what he is defending.
Recently, a doctor told me about his Interim Order Panel Hearing, on one set of allegations, his next IOP on a different set of allegations and then his Case Examiner assessment on yet another set of allegations - all on one set of events. This is a bizarre tactic by the GMC but nevertheless, this moving of the goalposts is classical of their activities. It is actually a breach of civil rights but I suspect everyone overlooks what the GMC actually does.
1 comments:
They investigated Wakefield without a complaint. Lying bastards.
Post a Comment