Mark Shaw QC and His Stooped Gait.

My Choice
Come On GMC.
Get a Better Looking Barrister Next Time

At £10,000 a day, I was largely disappointed at the fact that Mark Shaw QC was suffering from a stooped gait. My usual nickname for Shaw is Rumplestilkin because I believe the client he represents is making him into a crinkly skinny old man. One good aspect of being able to write is this, while Shaw can say many things about me in a court of law, no one listens to him. I though can say many things about him and lots of people read it. Mark Shaw QC can call this a public court and one where he will be judged by the yardstick of the public.

Mark Shaw QC though does sell himself to the GMC's bank. In fact, he has superglued himself there complete with additional duck tape security. The GMC roped Mark Shaw QC because he is the master magician and makes words and paper disappear without anyone knowing about it.

I stared at him in court quite a bit wondering why the GMC paid him so much money. I examined his cloak swish, the quality of his backside, his eyes and his presentation skills. Sadly, I felt there was better quality in the local farm produce of men. Clearly, Blackstone Chambers just don't breed tall dark handsome men who are QCs. Well, at least their prime cut product was not much to look at. Blackstone Chambers advertises a protection of human rights but spends the rest of the time in court violating the human rights of others.

I didn't understand it myself. I was hoping for some lush eye candy. That is the only reason you go into court isn't it?. I mean, you don't go there to get justice really. At least, I didn't expect to go there for justice. As Arpad Toth pointed out - Rita, you are going into a Casino :). you win some, you lose some. The girls though say that the Royal Courts of Justice has the best talent.

I had never seen Mark Shaw QC but heard much about him. I was eager to watch him action and took my popcorn with me. I also wondered why he wasn't the usual hunky man that the GMC had promised. They had promised a man who was gentler on the eye but Mark Shaw QC just didn't rock the court or any hormones.

Largely, at that rate of pay, there should be better value for money. I hope Finlay is listening. I for one was hugely disappointed by the fact that he really didn't match my Great Expectations of what a barrister for the GMC should be. The fact remains that the GMC never quite gets it quite right when it comes to me. First they get themselves a windbag then a string bean female with no lustre then a crinkly stooped old man. Shaw isn't actually that aged in years but I believe the General Medical Council is making him grow older by the day. He is far from the fresh faced barrister he once was.

I think that was the worst disappointment , the barrister for the GMC just wasn't tall, dark, handsome or dashing. It made me think that all these years, I had paid my GMC subscription for nothing really because even when you do end up in court, you get Rumplestilkin and not certainly Colin Firth.

Normally there is a certain attractiveness even to people who sail on the dark seas. Even Dracula is rather sexy in a evil kind of way.

With Mark Shaw QC, the lights had gone out in his eyes. In fact, he reminded me of a corpse functioning in this fictional world they termed a court room. Soon, he is going to lose so much weight that he will end up rattling away like all the skeletons in the GMC's closet.

Time for Remedy UK to beat the shit out of the GMC with the case law created here. Get to it boys [ and at least Remedy UK have better looking guys], the path has been opened for you.

The Whistleblower. Watching the Spectacle.

A thought triggered through my head today. It was something that the delicious Richard Marks said. Something about the establishment marginalising whistleblowers. That is interesting really because since the write up of Ward 87 in Private Eye, I have noted a number of people commenting between themselves about the " Tragedy at Whistleblower Towers". The main issue about the medical profession is that not one senior person will reach out and assist. They never have since 1998. They will though watch the spectacle. I have noticed that with each senior who has discovered that I am a whistleblower. Their tune changes, they sidle up like a large snake against the General Medical Council, and merge opinions between them in the false security of the comfort zone that the GMC gives them. Apart from Prof Steve Bolsin and Dr Peter Wilmshurst, I have found the great majority of seniors totally unsupportive.

They do watch and stare at the spectacle and lament over the loss of a medical career and crow "Well, she wasn't suited to medicine anyway" or " We always thought she was a trouble maker". I think when you read these remarks through files and documentation, it is more a reflection of themselves than of me. Their perception of whistleblowers and their success in creating an example that if you raise concerns, you medical career is wrecked. Well, at least the message gets through but it becomes a revolving door effect with the net result of more patient deaths.

I remain unimpressed with the seniors in the medical establishment and the profession. I suspect I am probably a product of how ineffective the medical establishment really is in assisting people or decent doctors.

Giving the NMC Rope

In my view, there has always been a serious problem with those who are in trouble and provide the authorities with the necessary material to publicly hang them. We have seen the admissions in Shrine Broadman's case which led to her dismissal and a subsequent scrutiny. I never understand why people do this ie why people "admit" the crime there are accused of. English is a wonderful language and many things can be done with it without having to "admit" everything outright. It is the medical mindset to simply grovel and apologise in the hope that the world and its corrupt management forgives them. I know of a doctor facing the General Medical Council who admitted wrong doing despite the fact there was no wrong doing. He was hoodwinked into thinking that his admissions would give him a lesser sentence. It didn't of course and he suffered the consequence and humiliation of the judge subsequently reminding him that he did apologise and it was this apology that made the GMC's case.

The BBC quotes "Ms Haywood had admitted breaching patient confidentiality but denied her fitness to practise had been impaired"

There we go again, " Admitted breaching patient's confidentiality". Seriously, which lawyer at the RCN advised her to do that? Panorama had sought the consent of the families to film the patients. The Liverpool Echo quoted

"Ms Haywood said only those patients who gave their consent or whose relatives had given consent after the filming appeared in the documentary"

Under those circumstances, there is no breach of confidentiality so why admit it?

As for Panorama, here is the production team who clearly happily watched Undercover Nurse go down.

Reporter: Sarah Barclay
Producer: Liz Bloor
Second Chair Louise Norman
Assistant Producers: Shabnam Grewal, Alison Priestley, Janette Ballard, Eleanor Plowden
Researcher: Amelia Vale
Deputy Editors: Andrew Bell, Frank Simmonds
Editor: Mike Robinson

And this was the conversation where I warned them of potential regulatory body onslaughts. The two didn't think I was being remotely serious and that it was an " isolated" incident and in my case their view was " where there is smoke, there is probably fire as well"

---- Original Message -----
From: Alison Priestley
To: rpal@btinternet.com
Cc: ritapal@poetess.fsnet.co.uk
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 2:48 PM
Subject: Getting in touch


Dear Rita,

You may remember that both I and my producer, Liz Bloor, either spoke to you on the 'phone or met you a few years ago during the making of our programme, 'Undercover Nurse' (Panorama, BBC One, July 2005)? It would be very helpful to speak to you about another, related, matter which I'm just beginning to look into for Panorama......

Alison Priestley

This was Liz Bloor.

She said: `We needed to see what was really happening, so we felt our only option really was to ask somebody to go undercover on a ward and that person really should be a nurse.

`Given that most of the complaints we had were to do with medical care, we thought that would be an appropriate route.`

Actually, that was "Nursing care" Liz. No one has yet figured out what medical problems existed and how there was a failure of "Medical" as opposed to "nursing" management of patients. There is absolutely no reason why Liz Bloor could not have hired a care assistant or a worker who was not registered with a regulatory body. It really does escape me why any programme would place someone in jeopardy knowing very well that an admission of breach of confidentiality leads to being struck off in any regulatory body.

Margaret Haywood worsened her case by making various admissions. This one is in the Daily Mail "

I understood that I was breaching patient confidentiality but I thought my actions were justified,' s

For the duty of confidentiality to be broken, a patient would have to have complained about the use of their personal data. In this case, no patient did and therefore there was no breach of " confidentiality". So, essentially all patients agreed to their data being broadcast so where on earth did the NMC get the idea of "breach of confidentiality". Well, they got it from Margaret Haywood herself who despite being a nurse shows herself up to be completely naive about what constitutes a breach of a duty of confidentiality.

We then review further - the NHS Code of Practice in relation to Confidentiality

Under common law, staff are permitted to disclose personal information in order to prevent and support detection, investigation and punishment of serious crime and/or to prevent abuse or serious harm to others where they judge, on a case by case basis, that the public good that would be achieved by the disclosure outweighs both the obligation of confidentiality to the individual patient concerned and the broader public interest in the provision of a confidential service.

We then go to the NMC and observe this at 5.3

If you are required to disclose information outside the team that will have personal consequences for patients or clients, you must obtain their consent. If the patient or client withholds consent, or if consent cannot be obtained for whatever reason, disclosures may be
made only where:

1. they can be justified in the public interest (usually where disclosure is essential to protect he patient or client or someone else from the risk of significant harm);
2. they are required by law or by order of a court.

So given consent was obtained and the matter was of " public interest", the only rope given to the NMC was Margaret Haywood's admission of breach of confidentiality. I suggest that Margaret Haywood cease being a media queen for a minute or two and apply her whistleblowing mind to the law of confidentiality because only a person with no understanding of the rules and laws would make such an admission.

And if Margaret Haywood and Liz Bloor really had the foresight, they could have quoted the case of a whistleblower who once whistleblew to the Sunday Times in the year 2nd April 2000 and did not get struck off for it. I can't imagine that they would have thought about that because women who think they know it all often don't and thats how they get themselves into boiling hot water then scream and shout through the media demanding public sympathy.

In conclusion, there was no reason Margaret Haywood should have admitted to a breach of confidentiality. The fact that she did directly led to her being struck off. No appeal is going to be successful given this blatant admission by her. Let that be a lesson to any innocent person who is stupid enough to make admissions.

Dr Rant " Dr Pal cries in the Wilderness" . I ain't no Miss Haversham.

Whistleblower
Out in the Cold

Yesterday, I had a number of emails from concerned folk regarding my welfare. Dr Rant had written "That’s why Dr Pal now cries in the wilderness". That kind of implied that I was a skinny, depressed, lonely, half baked doctor crying out for help - and that no one was listening! There is of course a startling difference between fact and fiction. Over the years, I have realised that the image portrayed of whistleblowers is that we are down and outs, not quite human, have no life [let alone sex] and are sad little no bodies ruminating over the past and what "may have been or could have been". I call this the Ms Haversham effect.

I should take sometime to correct some misconceived ideas about some whistleblowers. Firstly, I have never been depressed, neither have I ever been on SSRIs or any anti depressants. I have never been to see my GP to moan about my so called whistleblowing life. I lead a extremely full life and probably do more in one day then many people out there. I am not prone to being rattled by any kind of bullying or establishment tactics. I still watch Desperate Housewives and Damages plus anything else. I still read large amounts and probably have too many interests in other issues. There is a part of my private life that I keep private because it is no ones business really.

I do admit to be slightly " pissed off" in 1998 but during that time I learned that either you fight the tide against you or you sink. So, I decided that firstly, I wasn't going to be chased to Australia and secondly I wasn't going to be like your typical barndoor whistleblower image ie with no life. This is probably why I tried to work in the NHS for so many years [ which is unknown post whistleblowing].

I know the impression people have is that I write material as a product of my so called distress. I actually write Ward 87 because it is an interesting story, it is one of public interest and in the end, I do care about the past and the future. I think the person who probably understands me the best is Jobbing Doctor. He describes the way I write as tilting the establishment and ideas. And I think that is what I do best.

I am also of the view that it is vital to have a documented website of the experiences of one whistleblower. It is also important for people to understand that whistleblowers are normal people, with normal emotions and ones who lead normal lives.

Perhaps I don't fit the image of a whistleblower but the example to set here is this - the past is the past, no one can change it. The future though is always bright and can always be changed if we understand and learn from the past.

I refused to be potrayed as a person whose life is over, my life ain't over until the fat lady sings and even after the fat lady sings, there is more to life than allowing your life to be ruled by a bunch of half baked NHS managers who are so incompetent that they can't do their job. Perhaps it my sense of arrogance but if the NHS and the GMC have made it impossible for me to work, that is their loss. I am certainly not going to cry in the wilderness about it. In the end, the NHS lost a pretty good doctor because no one took the time to encourage or protect the whistleblower.

Each day for a whistleblower is a battle for survival. Once you have survived whistleblowing, you can fight and survive anything.

Thankyou Radio Ulster

I was on Radio Ulster's Talkback. I thought the interviewer was excellent.

Anyway, the programme can be listened to by downloading here.

I really have to do something about my stuttering :). Anyway, the highlight of my lunch period was talking to the sexiest Irish voices over at the Emerald Planet.

The above was dedicated to Dr John Gregan, who is the Irish connection to Ward 87 and the man who once believed in me.

Good Luck to Ian Paisley for protecting his whistleblowing source.

Panorama Style Whistleblowing.

sClimbing the Glacier

Clearly, the way to whistleblow is to get hired by Panorama, secretly film patients for television, get dragged through the regulatory body while you sit around watching allegations are thrown at you and then be found guilty of misconduct. You can then tell the world that you are a whistleblower because the media defines you as one.

At that point the entire media says how dreadful it is for whistleblowers to be treated badly, having paid little attention to numerous whistleblowers in the NHS. Unlike other whistleblowers, Panorama can "support their whistleblower" by extending more media publicity to it than any other whistleblower in the UK to justify what they did was right. There is of course only one whistleblower these days, her name is Margaret Haywood.

Margaret has petitions set up for her and she has the entire media at her feet. Hundreds of whistleblowers remain without a job. All these whistleblowers do not have petitions set up for them. Only one hospital in the UK has elderly care problems of course, that is Margaret Haywood's hospital. No other hospital in the UK but that featured and cherry picked by Panorama has that.

The fact remains is this, Margaret Haywood did not have to get struck off, she could have studied the law books, effected a challenge to the High Court at the start of the NMC screening process. She didn't. The question is, is she a true whistleblower - is she tougher than the rest? Can she fight the system because that is what whistleblowers do? Well, we know she can't fight the system and we also know that despite her backup by the RCN and the entire public, she still failed to win on legal argument. That may not be her fault but it certainly is someone's fault and the person in the driving seat is her. She had a number of choices open to her, she didn't take any of them. Panorama has now found that media power does not win the case at a regulatory body hearing.

Panorama can then tell us that only they know how to raise concerns about elderly care and the rest of the whistleblowers in the UK don't. After that, Panorama's whistleblower may receive a tidy sum which is more than any other whistleblower in the UK gets. They can also enjoy massive worship by the public while real jobbing whistleblowers have to work damned hard to get themselves cleared. And how hard is it to dissect through legal documents, NHS documents and any other documents to formulate and dissect? Haywood wouldn't know what it is like to read and read piles of official documents to fight your case until your eyes are tired, until exhaustion makes you wish that you never had whistleblown. It is a denial of sunlight because while everyone else is out leading their life, you are reading intricate technical documents to fight to ensure that you win against the establishment and against the tide - because you don't want to be a victim, you want to be a survivor. Haywood hasn't learned to fight yet because she isn't a fighter.

She hasn't tasted the real art of whistleblower survival. Because whistleblower survival isn't cool, isn't media fodder and isn't trendy, it doesn't demand the " victim support" of the public. It isn't "cool" to be a surviving whistleblower who has never been struck off.

It is therefore more "media accepted" to be found guilty of misconduct than to fight to clear your name. You have to be suspended from your job or found guilty of misconduct because then you can reach the heady heights of the media. If you do though fight the tide, win, you are by default called a trouble maker but not a whistleblower. Those who do fight to clear their name aren't given the credit of taking their initiative or being any good at what they do.

Whistleblowers who are cleared aren't proper whistleblowers at all. And that is the lesson we learn from Panorama and the media. Then they are the ones who were negligent enough to allow Margaret to haul herself into the dragon's den and Margaret happily allowed them.

Now we have a further message that regulatory bodies shoots the messenger. We don't have the more pro-active message that regulatory body may try to shoot the messenger but its time to fight back against the tide and win. No whistleblower is a victim, nor should they demand the sympathy of others. They should all stand up, fight for their rights in society, their rights to exist as an equal and should ensure that regulatory bodies do not get away with abusing them. They owe it to all the whistleblowers after them.

Message received from a mobile on NHS Behind the Headlines.

"Don't worry guys, bizarrely I'm sat across from Liz Bloor on the train and as she speaks far too loudly I heard she works for the bbc. She then started to say that the nurse in question would receive a pay off from the BBC to stop her going "to talk to others" as the bbc want to make sure that she stays commited to them. FYI it was the London to Euston train, and she was sat in first class Virgin train coach J... Good to see our license fee going to good use. Liz should really learn to keep her voice down, as I only googled her name when she said her taxi should have been booked by the bbc and her voice has an annoyingly smug arrogance about it.

GMC's Favourite Whistleblower on Radio 5 Live.

I was invited to Radio 5 Live today on their feature on Whistleblowing.

The programme can be downloaded and heard through I Player here. You need to fast forward to 11am otherwise as Richard Marks points out, it gets very boring.

Just for the record, I dumped my common Brummy accent which appears when I am ticked off and replaced it with my rather a clipped BBC accent. My problem with the above is that the host wasn't quite directing the conversation with me. No idea why but there we go. Not bad despite refusing to do media for a few years now.

A BIG THANKYOU TO PRIVATE EYE

Page 10 Private Eye

I would just like to thank Private Eye and MD for their kindness in featuring the material below. They are the only mainstream publication to feature a summary of the evidence. I would also like to primarily thank all my amazing blogging medical colleagues, The Jobbing Doctor, The Witchdoctor, Dr Rant, Dr Grumble, the infamous Dr John Crippen who has shamelessly plugged me on his website since the dawn of time showing us all that wonderbras still work a treat! :).Eye candy is supplied to whistleblowers by Northern Doctor.

There has been a recent debate about the rise of bloggers. Without the medical bloggers, there would be no accountability in the NHS. It is those few medical bloggers who raise concerns on a day to day basis who are the real heroes in the NHS. I also know that blogging provided me with a platform to raise concerns in a environment where the media and the government silenced the vital issues of Ward 87. Had the issues been addressed in 1999 and lessons learned and applied to the rest of the NHS, 2000 people would not have died at Mid Staffordshire.

It has taken 10 years to uncover the evidence from my end but better late then never! I would like Neil Marshall of the GMC to read this very carefully because one day I am going to watch him sit on the stand and justify why the GMC took no action and allowed so many people to die. This is not about me but about the manner in which the establishment has shot the messenger. That messenger was shot despite the recommendations by the Bristol and Shipman Inquiries. While officialdom professed to protect whistleblowers at those inquiries, they were busy happily character assassinating me.

What was it that the GMC does, protecting patients was it? Let us not forget what the GMC actually did when I complained in the year 2000. This was done immediately a month after the complaint..... and let us not forget Harris HHJ damning judgment that labelled them a "totalitarian regime".

The court transcript from the case of PAL vs GMC, May 2004 before Judge Charles Harris is of interest

JUDGE HARRIS: For myself I don't really see why somebody complaining about the behaviour of doctors or the GMC, if that is what they are doing, why that should raise a question about their mental stability, unless anybody who wishes to criticise "the party" is automatically showing themselves to be mentally unstable because they don't agree with the point of view put forward on behalf of the GMC or the party. MISS COLLIER: That in itself certainly would not be enough.

JUDGE HARRIS: It is like a totalitarian regime: anybody who criticises it is said to be prima facie mentally ill - what used to happen in Russia.

MISS COLLIER: My Lord, that is very far from the circumstances of this case.

JUDGE HARRIS: Of course it is ..

Quoted from the Department of Health correspondence written by their lawyers.

" 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"

More Staffing Problems Private Eye No 1234 17th - 30th April 2009

A key question for the investigation into the appalling standards of emergency care at Mid Staffordshire hospital is: ‘Why did no member of staff blow the whistle sooner?’ In a 2006 Healthcare Commission survey, only 27% of the Mid Staffs staff said they would be happy to be treated in their own hospital, a powerful indication that standards were unacceptable. And after Bristol, the General Medical Council deemed that doctors had a duty to speak up when the service becomes so unsafe that patients are being harmed.

However, the experience of Dr Rita Pal in nearby North Staffs suggests that whistle-blowing in the NHS remains a thankless task. Dr Pal identified serious shortcomings in the nursing and medical care of patients on Ward 87 of City General hospital, Stoke on Trent, when she started working there in August 1998. These included a lack of basic equipment such as drip sets, a lack of adequate support and supervision for junior doctors, a gross shortage of staff and repeated ‘do not resuscitate’ notices. As a result, patient care was often poor, with a lack of baseline observations and routine blood tests, and there appeared to be an unacceptably high mortality rate.

In November 1998, Dr Pal articulated these concerns to senior nursing and medical staff, and put them in writing. As a result, she was bullied and victimised. She was wrongly accused of causing a needle-stick injury and inserting the wrong date on a drug sheet, and she found out that her previous consultant had been contacted to ascertain whether she was ‘capable of doing the job’ (i.e. flying by the seat of her pants with inadequate support and resources, surrounded by hostile nursing staff and patients dying unnecessarily). She requested leave because she (quite reasonably) felt unable to care for patients in this environment.

Subsequent investigation found that Dr Pal’s allegations had been spot on. A review in May 1999 by Mrs T Fenech from the Infectious Diseases Unit found ‘serious deficiencies in nursing practice’ and that ‘the level of care demonstrated for some patients on the ward at the time of my audit was nothing short of negligent.’ In 2001, an internal report concluded that the Directorate failed to take appropriate action when the allegations were made by Dr Pal and that patients had suffered from poor standards of care. And in March 2002 the Commission for Health Improvement still found ‘serious deficiencies’ particularly with ‘the level of supervision, workload and work patterns of junior doctors working within medicine’

So not only were Dr Pal’s initial allegations accurate, but four years later very little had been done to address them. Dr Pal took her concerns to the General Medical Council and – eleven years after first raising concerns – is still embroiled in a fight to ascertain the true extent of the harm done to patients on ward 87. A mature and safety-conscious NHS would have thanked her for raising concerns to help improve patient care, and acted on them. Instead, she has been bullied, falsely accused of malpractice and repeatedly denied access to key documents to help support her case.

Last week, sir Ian Kennedy, retiring chair of the Healthcare commission, spoke of the bullying culture in the NHS that still ‘permeates the delivery of care.’ Those who are brave enough to speak up about deficiencies in care are being pilloried and silenced. In such an environment, patient safety can never flourish. Dr Pal has lobbied (via her MP Andrew Mitchell) for the Commons Health Select Committee to investigate the problems faced by whistleblowers in the NHS. She has also started a support network for whistleblowers and can be contacted at dr.ritapal@googlemail.com

MD

North Staffordshire NHS Trust Pays Out £3,515,590 In Compensation

Sometime ago, I wrote a post stating that the death rate of North Staffordshire NHS Trust was probably worse than Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust.

Well, today I discovered that the NHSLA figures for 2004-2005 for North Staffordshire NHS Trust were phenomenally higher than the rest of the Trusts. It has beaten all other hospitals in the area for that year at a cool £3,515,590. We assume that these would have been cases that resolved in the previous years - at least 3-5 years. Of course, when I worked on Ward 87 in 1998, it was being litigated against by many people. That is of course the manner in which people are silenced. I assume clauses are used in litigation known as gagging clauses. This is Cure the NHS, the Mid Staffs Campaign group. We shall wait and see how many lawyers pounce to silence them :). Sarah Harman is already on the prowl. It is actually a bit like the Thameside Hospital Action group who were effectively silenced by ongoing litigation. They called for all sorts of inquiries which subsequently never happened.

Member name	Total paid
Burton Hospitals National Health Service Trust	335,088
Mid Staffordshire General Hospitals NHS Trust	652,418
North Staffordshire Combined Healthcare NHS Trust	106,764
Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic and District Hospital NHS Trust	81,258
Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust	951,905
South Staffordshire Healthcare NHS Trust	33,420
Staffordshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust	0
University Hospital of North Staffordshire NHS Trust	3,515,590

Source - Hansard - NHSLA 2004-2005.

Thankyou to Andrew Mitchell MP of the Conservatives

After a number of years, Andrew Mitchell has finally come up trumps. He has taken the bull by the horns on the issue of the compulsory recording of the death rate on NHS Wards. He has approached Ben Bradshaw on the relevant issues. Ben has failed to come up with the research to back up his decision not to record death rates in the NHS.

Moreover, Andrew Mitchell has been fantastic in referring a number of matters concerning whistleblowing. We are all extremely pleased with his efforts. So, a big thankyou from me and all my whistleblowing colleagues. I may have gone grey waiting but at least this gives us all hope that after a decade, some things are possible. In any case, there is always Loreal.

The actions so far show that the Conservatives have a great deal more insight than the lying scheming fat toads at the Labour Party.