FRANK COOK MP. MARK FISHER MP. LYING FOR LABOUR

Frank Cook is currently squealing through the media trying to get out of his £5 donation expenses claim. Apparently, he can't remember claiming it. Sure we believe him [ NOT]. The material below is a earlier post all about Frank Cook's crooked little ways. He and his mate Mark Fisher MP tried to obstruct an investigation by the Health Commission into Ward 87. They both have a new concept ICD 10 Code - it is called Selective Memory Loss.

Here is the tale........

Written in 2008.

I have finally received confirmation that two MPs belonging to the Labour Party LIED about referring the issue of Ward 87 onto the Health Commission. Those MPs were Mr Mark Fisher of Stoke on Trent and his colleague Mr Frank Cook.

In 2005/2006 both MPs were approached about Ward 87 North Staffordshire NHS Trust. Both wrote to me offering their support and collectively agreed to refer the matter onto the Health Commission. This is confirmed by their emails below.

When the Health Commission did not write to me, I began to seek confirmation of this referral. Mark Fisher MP refused to provide me with a copy of the referral. His colleague Frank Cook MP also failed to provide a copy. In three years, they have failed to locate the referral letter.

The failure of the referral in due time effectively sabotaged any meaningful investigation that could be conducted by the Health Commission. The two MPs had of course planned this in meticulous detail. I assume it was because the Labour Party had its own agenda regarding the cover up methodology used for patient neglect.

We therefore ask a further question, why would two MPs purposefully lie to me about a simple referral? Both MPs colluded and purposefully decided that they were not going to refer the matter onto the Health Commission. They both purposefully sought to initially engage me implying they were offering some lip service support. This masquerade continued for a number of years while I tracked down the evidence of their dishonest behaviour.

Following that, they both sat down hoping that no one would discover their plan to effectively conceal the matter of Ward 87 from independent scrutiny. Their plan was to hoodwink me into believing they had referred the matter to the Health Commission and that something was being done. In reality, no referral was ever made.

The two MPs continued to blatantly and shamelessly lie to me collectively for many years . In November 2008, Mr Cook denied any involvement with the matter [ see emails below]. His prior emails are evidence that he blatantly lied yet again.

The Standards Commissioner questioned Mr Mark Fisher and he stated he did not have the paperwork related to the Ward 87 issue anymore :). I believe this is a similar defence used today by Frank Cook. Mr Fisher's Etonian education clearly taught him to be proficient in the art of lying. That is about all he is proficient in.

Here are the various assertions by the two MPs.

---- Original Message -----
From: FISHER, Mark
To: Rita Pal
Cc: COOK, Frank
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 3:51 PM
Subject: RE: Confirmation

Dear Dr Pal

I did indeed refer your complaint, on behalf of Frank Cook and myself, to the Health Commission and am, as I think I have already said to you, still awaiting their reply.

I did not refer this to the Health Select Committee as their brief is to monitor and scrutinise Government policy, not operational matters.

With best wishes

Mark Fisher

----- Original Message -----
From: "COOK, Frank"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 9:24 AM
Subject: RE: GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL UK PLAYS PASS THE PARCEL

Dear Dr. Pal,

I took the opportunity to discuss your various E-mails in the most general terms with my colleague Mark Fisher MP --- his reaction was that he thought at first glance overall you probably had a case to be answered and he was looking at it --- I promptly offered my support for whatever initiative he might decide to adopt --- he thanked me for that, told me I could let you know of our conversation and said he would keep me informed of any future developments.

Best regards, good luck and God bless fc.

----- Original Message -----
From: COOK, Frank
To: Rita Pal
Cc: peterdodsonmedia@aol.com ; STONEHOUSE, Billy
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 2:36 AM
Subject: RE: Confirmation

Does it make a difference? -- Yes it does! I have insufficient knowledge of your case, though I did discuss your allegations briefly on a number of occasions, with both Mr Fisher and the Chairman of the Health Select Committee. I made no commitment to make any referral to any commission , or any other person for that matter.
--------------------
Frank Cook


EMAIL FROM THE HEALTH COMMISSION

dr.ritapal@googlemail.com

19th December 2008
Request Reference: 37-263752524


Dear Dr Pal,

Thank you for your emails of 5th and 12th December 2008, in which you request access to information.

In your emails you requested confirmation that a referral had been received by the Healthcare Commission regarding Ward 87 North Staffordshire NHS Trust, from Mark Fisher MP and Frank Cook MP.

The Information Access team, in line with the statutory deadlines under Freedom of Information and Data Protection legislation, is currently processing your request. The deadline for a request of this kind is twenty working days from the date we received your request. This means that you should expect to receive our response by 16th January 2008.

If you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,



Tallulah Sutherland-Spedding
Information Access Officer

Richard Horton and The Lancet

Sexy :)

The Lancet is actually my fav medical journal. I read that and the New England Journal of Medicine. I have done this since my days as a medical student. It is quite sad that the public do not have easy access to these journals. It causes a gap between the medical profession and the public. Nevertheless, that is how it has been for many years.

I like the editorials written by the very intelligent and articulate Richard Horton. I have to thank him for unmasking Andrew Wakefield some years ago. Richard Smith ex editor of the BMJ was just too smitten with Andrew's good looks to even spot the issue. We can still hear Richard huffing away about how wonderful Andrew was. There isn't a peep out of Richard these days. Cat got his tongue I suppose. There is certainly a Richard Smith on the supporters list for Wakefield. Mind you, the world and his dog is called Smith these days.

Horton's book Science and Fiction is well worth a read. Horton has a clear and logical head unlike his competitor and dizzy BMJ editor Fiona Godlee. Horton has his finger on the pulse most of the time although I often think that the furore surrounding MMR surprised him. As the icing on the cake, Horton is also pretty good looking as editors of straight journals go. Some things are important to the naked eye no doubt.

Talking of charming men, I do have to thank Alistair on Panorama for some interesting correspondence. David Southall can be watched on Panorama this Monday at 8.30. The answer to the programme is - yes, David has been the victim of a dysfunctional group complete with accessory personality disorders.

No doubt, the world of women will throw darts at the television and the rest of us will observe whether he has learned anything in the last few years.

The fight to steal David Southall's fame continues through Jayne Bryant and Lisa Blakemore Brown, two women who don't quite assess matters in a straight line but nevertheless have interesting views from the hill.

There is no doubt that David is an irritating man on many occasions but that's just because I often out argue him and think seven steps ahead.

David has two groups of women - those who love him without questioning him, and those who hate him with a vengeance. There is no middle ground at all.

David needs five more years to develop a more balanced view of the social perception of issues involving child protection. That is because he has spent too much time with his child protection mates and not enough time with real people. I do have to say that in Penny Mellor's own skewed view, she is right about the lack of solutions for those who are accused but innocent. A GMC erasure though isn't vindication or a solution. Mellor for some reason has never concentrated on changing the system to address the allegations that remain on a file despite the person being deemed innocent. I would say the focus of her campaign has been wrong from the start but then no one can teach a dogmatic arrogant self congratulatory campaigner.

The lack of a reality check for David has resulted in the views developed by Lisa Blakemore Brown and Jayne. I just don't think David is very good at dealing with women who challenge him. His solution is to avoid them. I suspect this inability to focus on how other people percieve him has resulted in his erasure. David is a straight line thinker, a man who doesn't deal in emotions or feelings or the needs of others. David has a job in front of him, he does it to the best of his ability. That is the way he approaches the protection of a child. Blakemore Brown and Jayne are rather different creatures - rather more emotive, considerate, heartfelt. The world of David Southall therefore clashes with Blakemore Brown and Jayne - and quite frankly neither understands the other's thought processes.

The bottom line is this - neither women are on the shop floor dealing with child abusers and probably have no idea what it is like making a decision to protect the child. Everyone has an opinion about it - but the buck does not stop with us.

There is though no doubt all that David Southall is one of the best child protection specialists this side of the UK. No child has died out of neglect on David's on call. That remains a fact whether anyone likes it or not.

Anyway, I wanted to feature the best piece so far in relation to child protection in the Lancet.

Urgent: a UK Commission on Child Protection

Original Text

The Lancet

Last week, three contradictory decisions made a mockery of child protection in the UK and Ireland by further adding to the confusion around how best to protect vulnerable children.

On May 20, Judge Sean Ryan released the final report of Ireland's commission into child abuse, which revealed that over the past few decades, more than 30 000 children were repeatedly raped, beaten, and molested by priests and nuns in Catholic church-run schools and orphanages. Now aged 50—70 years, none of the victims will have the justice that they deserve because none of their abusers will be prosecuted.

Then on May 22, the second review into the death of Baby Peter—who died in August, 2007, aged 17 months after repeated abuse—was released and stressed that his mother's continuous cover-up of his abuse was no excuse for the multiple agencies and individuals involved for failing to protect him. Indeed, after a media campaign, the General Medical Council (GMC) suspended the paediatrician who did not detect signs of repeated abuse immediately before his death. This second review states that professionals should use their judgment and instincts to pursue the investigation of potential child abuse, even in the knowledge that they may be mistaken.

Therefore, it is incomprehensible that on the same day as the second review was released and the UK Secretary of State for Children, Schools, and Families, Ed Balls, said that all professionals involved in child protection should act to put the child first and not be deceived by parents, the High Court upheld the GMC's decision to strike the paediatrician and child protection expert, Dr David Southall, off the medical register for doing just that. Mr Justice Blake threw out Southall's appeal against the GMC's decision, which was based on him allegedly accusing a mother of killing her son. Justice Blake confirmed the decision of a GMC panel and upheld the view that the mother was “an impressive, credible, and reliable witness in the central issues of the case”. In a press statement, the advocacy organisation, Professionals Against Child Abuse, said that this decision will be a further deterrent to paediatricians and other health professionals from getting involved in child protection work.

So, in light of all these conflicting messages, what are professionals committed to protecting children supposed to do? Child protection in the UK and Ireland is a disastrous mess and it is clear that no amount of reflex retribution, retraining, and tinkering around the edges will be enough to fix it.

One group of paediatricians and child protection workers believes that different types of child abuse need different ways of dealing with it. Premeditated child maltreatment by perpetrators who are deceptive, so this group argues, may need more and earlier involvement of specialist police units since the police cannot be intimidated by dangerous child abusers and can protect social workers and paediatricians.

A different view emerged from evidence reviewed in our child maltreatment Series. The Series authors argued that a change towards earlier police involvement may actually cause more harm to the large number of children who come from chaotic and incapable families with social instability. They advocated a comprehensive child and family welfare approach, where the emphasis is on addressing need, rather than a safety approach, which focuses on determining culpability. In their view, the welfare emphasis means that more maltreated children are likely to receive therapeutic and supportive services. And although they agreed that some types of child maltreatment do require criminal prosecution, the difficulty remains for paediatricians at the frontline to diagnose the different types of child abuse and refer to the appropriate services. Clearly there is no overall consensus among professionals on how to best serve the very people they try to protect—children.

Paediatricians need to speak up loudly and take the lead in a concerted effort to change the current, clearly inadequate system in the most appropriate way. The government should put the Children's Commissioner in charge to urgently set up a National Child Protection Commission that reviews all the evidence emerging from national and international data and devise evidence-based recommendations on how best to protect vulnerable children. Society has the collective responsibility to do justice to the memories of 30 000 Irish victims, Baby Peter, Victoria Climbié, Ainlee Labonte, and all the other countless and nameless victims of damaging and life-threatening child abuse.

There is a PDF on the website as well.

BMJ " What's a "Lawyer"?

Gooderham Appears Not to have Reached Maximum Shark Status

I had to smirk while reading the BMJ today. This is supposed to be the highest ranking medical journal in the UK, yet it has had to remove Raj Persaud's material because it didn't understand the issue about cut and paste. To put it another way, they overlooked it.

"Mr Donne said the British Medical Journal (BMJ) was forced to issue an "unequivocal retraction" in September 2005 after publishing an article by Dr Persaud in which he failed to correctly attribute his work"

Now they have been peddling law tutor Peter Gooderham as a "Expert in whistleblowing". Last night I noted a Podcast. This is the BMJ's efforts at being " trendy", being "in with the crowd". Of course, it doesn't work because all of us who know this journal, know that it has been sailing downwards for quite a while. It is a shame it doesn't crash and burn to allow other more open minded journals to take over. Even the Lancet has more teeth than the BMJ.

Anyway, back to the Podcast - it is called Whistle Down the Archives. This is what they say :-

"Rebecca Coombes talks to lawyers Peter Gooderham from Cardiff University and Chris Cox from the Royal College of Nursing about the legal implications of whistleblowing"

The question therefore remains, is Peter Goodherham a lawyer?

For that, we go to Peter's website which states as follows

"After several years in General Practice he obtained First Class Honours in the Open University LLB and first came to Cardiff to do the Legal Aspects of Medical Practice course in 2002, graduating LLM in 2004. Also in 2004 he became an International Fellow of the American College of Legal Medicine. He is a Council Member of the Section of Clinical Forensic and Legal Medicine of the Royal Society of Medicine"

We therefore assume that he has not done the Legal Practise Course. At least he does not appear to have done it. The Dictionary cites the definition of a Lawyer as

"a member of the legal profession who can advise clients about the law and represent them in court"

We know Gooderham is not a solicitor or a barrister. He is a Law Tutor. He does not have the qualifications to represent clients in court. Is is therefore strictly a lawyer?

Does that qualify him into giving legal advice? For that, we may go off to the Solicitors Act

1. No person shall be qualified to act as a solicitor unless— Qualifications
(a) he has been admitted as a solicitor, and for practising
as solicitor.
(b) his name is on the roll, and
(c) he has in force a certificate issued by the Society in
accordance with the provisions of this Part authorising
him to practise as a solicitor (in this Act referred to as
a "practising certificate ").

Well, Gooderham is not on the Law Society's list and is not a solicitor. He does not appear to be on the Bar Council list either so can't be a barrister. The question then remains, what is he? And does he have the capacity to provide advice on legislation/employment/PIDA in the media with the title " lawyer". He is certainly a law tutor, there is no doubts about that. There is of course a world of difference between teaching it and doing it. It appears that Gooderham has never applied the law practically in the real world. He has never advised on PIDA so why is the BMJ peddling him as an "Expert" and a "Lawyer"?

Is this misleading the mainstream audience? That is the question isn't it. And does the lay audience know the difference between a law tutor and a person who is a lawyer and is able to practise law?

Peter Gooderham. An Expert in What?

LLB. Making You An Expert in Everything.

Previously on Ward 87 I wrote about the BMJ and their limp piece on Whistleblowing written by a default "expert" in whistleblowing Peter Gooderham.

I have this morning discovered where the word "expert" as used in the BMJ piece this week and featured by the media. It originated from the BMJ Press Releases. The title of said press release is " Culture change to encourage whistleblowing needed, says expert".

So the BMJ itself is peddling a Tutor from Cardiff University as an " Expert in Whistleblowing". How did that happen then?

If we look closely at the Peter Gooderham's website he tells us " His particular interests are in clinical negligence, medical regulation, and the role of expert witnesses." . So where is the word "whistleblowing" then?

So essentially, he is a doctor turned law tutor. His research does not appear to be on whistleblowing. He has never whistleblown in his life. He does not appear to be a leading researcher in all things whistleblowing. He knows nothing about whistleblowing apart from what he has read in the papers and the BMJ peddles him as an " Expert".

Geez, it must be going through their usual "desperado" days in searching high and low for someone they can mislead the media about. It is quite a nice trick to essentially advertise ones law degree which by default apparently means you become an expert in whistleblowing. Unbelievable! So what happened to the likes of Raj Mattu or Aubrey Blumsohn, men who are established whistleblowers? Not good enough for the BMJ then?

So lets see, the man who has never whistleblown, never researched whistleblowing, has no idea about whistleblowing is now consulted by the media as an "expert" on the subject. Wow, nice work if you can get it eh.

My God, I eat chocolate, I must be an expert in it :).

Dr Peter Gooderham plus BMJ

This is the link to the BMJ piece on whistleblowing. I discussed it briefly yesterday. I only realised today that it was written by Peter Gooderham, the man who wonderfully missed out the leading regulatory body case on Whistleblowing from his talk on the GMC. The header to the piece states

"Statutory protection, support from
regulatory bodies and a culture change are required"

Support from the regulatory bodies? What does Gooderham mean by this? Does he mean that it happens overnight and the Witch hunters in medicine suddenly cease to act? Does he think that just by a BMJ header, the GMC will say " Ah, we have been wrong, we are here to protect whistleblowers". I think not. Is Gooderham about to address the contamination of the GMC by groups like freemasonry? The GMC has admitted to freemasonry. Ah, that is a prickly subject for the brotherhood. And the role this group plays against whistleblowers? Has anyone bothered to examine that?

Some writers refer to Gooderham as an " expert". And expert in what? Has he ever whistleblown? No, I suspect not.

He concludes.

"A start would be for those in official positions to recognise the risks of whistleblowing. Then they might begin to limit the damage wrought by the next scandals which are probably already happening"

And how is that going to happen when the author himself does not raise the vital concerns regarding the witch hunts conducted by our great and good General Medical Council. Gooderham exists in a world of his own. It is a theoretical world where matters are analysed, quoted by reference and all of a sudden the world assumes that the medical profession is doing something about whistleblowing. The article in the BMJ is effectively meaningless and pointless. It essentially rolls in the media being quoted by the Telegraph so that those who debate can sit there like Churchill dogs and go "Ah yeees".

The theory is that if you write in measured terms as the BMJ would accept, they must be saying something important. In reality, if you read the piece, it says nothing important. It does not provide us with new information or problem solving measures. It is a lip service piece written to join in the party of media articles on whistleblowing.

In reality, the majority of senior doctors are the main problem in the culture to prevent whistleblowing. This just is not recognised. This can be viewed by the total lack of support from leading medical journals for vital issues raised by whistleblowers. Peter Gooderham is no stranger to neglecting Ward 87. He has remained tight lipped about it for 9 years.

Lets get to the bottom of the problem - the problem remains a cultural misconception and misunderstanding of whistleblowers. They are historically deemed trouble makers and I suspect in the end they do become trouble makers due to the consistent system failings to address the important concerns. Most whistleblowers become pariahs. Having forced them into that state, the profession will tend to punish them by default. Trouble makers need to be taught a lesson and that lesson is normally taught by senior doctors who love making an example of whistleblowers. As soon as any senior doctor finds out that a doctor is a whistleblower - there is a certain protocol of that is followed. This includes making life impossible for that doctor. Many seniors engage in this behaviour.

The medical profession is extremely good at isolating whistleblowing doctors. It is a kind of " Hey look, lets see if they survive. We can't publicly be seen to associate with them because it might have a detrimental effect on my career". Character assassination quests then continue through the dark corridors of medicine. Perhaps it gives them that certain satisfaction to make life difficult for the whistleblower.

Gooderham presents rather a predictable media stance on moaning that something should be done to "protect" whistleblowers. Well, this has been narrated by various articles for the last 20 years. He provides no constructive solutions about the future much like his predecessors. Whistleblowing becomes an intellectual debate and a discussion over tea. Then it is forgotten. This has been seen in the Shipman Inquiry and the Bristol Inquiry. There are reams of documents on the subject of whistleblowing - all of which are ignored. In reality, it is extremely difficult for a single whistleblower to report their concerns and for their concerns to be taken seriously.

Gooderham makes no advances about improving the legal support for whistleblowers, or trade union representation or indeed defence union representation. He makes no suggestions that there should be a Health Select Committee review into Whistleblowing to come to a set of solutions after interviewing a number of whistleblowers. He does not suggest that PIDA should be reassessed and reviewed so that protection is guaranteed for doctors within their job not after they have been dismissed and whistleblown. He offers no suggestion of trauma support for whistleblowers or a Whistleblower Support group or medical school education on the subject. That is because Gooderham does live in his ivory tower. It is a legal ivory tower. Those that live in it are divorced from reality and practicality.

I should say Gooderham has known about Ward 87 since the early 2000. I note he fails to mention it in any article.

Ward 87 is a thorn in the BMJ's side. It can't be easy to be indirectly responsible for the deaths of more than 2000 people. But the finger should be pointing at the BMJ? They should ask themselves what they were doing while people were dying?

North Staffordshire and Staffordshire and what could have been done to prevent deaths? That is a question isn't it? What could the medical journals have done to prevent this catastrophy?

The link is of course forgotten yet the link between Haywood and Staffordshire is the commonest one. Haywood though isn't outspoken, she is a meek nurse who does the victim role quite well. Being a media constructed whistleblower is of course a little different from a real one :). The confort zone of media support, legal support and payments from Panorama are not something in the armory of every whistleblower. Real whistleblowers happen to be quite the opposite - they also happen to stand on their own two feet without various crutches given to a media styled whistleblower.

Tea and sympathy and debate is not what the whistleblowing world requires. It requires the Medical Journals to look at themselves to see what they could have done to support each and every whistleblower in the United Kingdom. It requires inquiries and practical solutions.

The BMJ remains unsupportive of Ward 87 to this day. They minds are clouded by the image of a " trouble maker" who has now probably become a trouble maker because she finds it unacceptable that 2000 people died because her concerns were neglected by them .

They were neglected by the BMJ because she did not fit the image that the BMJ has of whistleblowers. Image is everything of course. Facts and evidence mean nothing for the land of the BMJ. Essentially, you have to be a good little whisteblower and you can only be those if you are Margaret Haywood. The rest of the whistleblowers are hard hitting, outspoken tough guys who play to win.

I have no doubts that Gooderham will be grossly unhappy with this write - up and aim to justify himself. In the end, my patience has run out with those who purport to support whistleblowers in theory but in practise would walk past them and make no comment.

Gooderham has his position to maintain much like his favourite medical colleagues. Between 2000 and 2006 despite knowing about Ward 87 Gooderham has never so much as dropped me a line of support.

BMJ. You have to be White, Middle Aged and An Establishment Whistleblower

Sharp Suit. White Face. BMJ Backed

The problem with reading newspapers at 5 am in the morning is that there is a huge risk of choking on my cornflakes. Liz Miller introduced me to this choking effect. It is often developed when utterly shocked at certain statements made by the various publications and the media. A few weeks ago, I asked why the medical journals were so slow in raising concerns on whistleblowing. We asked why no medical journals backed whistleblowing doctors within the NHS. Well, the BMJ have apparently been slow to react but better late then never. I suspect, Fiona Godlee felt her Carbon obsession had come to an end and it may have been a slow story day.

Now, the history between me and the BMJ goes back centuries. We have to go back to old bats like Richard Smith and Kamran Abassi and their attitude to junior medical whistleblowers. Richard Smith backed Andrew Wakefield 100 percent. Indeed, there are column inches dedicated to him. That was his whistleblower of choice. Andrew was white, middleclass, wore tweed jackets, smiled at the camera with that Colgate twinkle. We remember the days Richard Smith hailed Andrew Wakefield as a whistleblower undermined by the establishment. Indeed, Richard crowed so much about it, it was amazing. No crowing now though because Richard has done a U turn since Wakefield has ended up at the GMC. Isn't it amazing how fickle ex BMJ editors can be.

By comparison, there was me - a junior doctor whom few people paid any heed to during the early days. I had gone to Richard Smith and repeatedly told him about Ward 87. He summarily ignored me. When the evidence filtered out, he ignored me then as well. That was the sole reason for commencing http://www.nhsexposed.com . I was a bit tired of tolerating this behaviour. And sure I resented it. Why shouldn't I resent it? The leading medical journal ignored junior doctors concerns, failed to raise issues on the failure of supervision and continued as if Ward 87 never existed. People were dying and Richard was into personalities. I didn't quite fit in. I was that little different - different sentence structure, outspoken. I am a little uncomfortable for the BMJ. Someone who never quite went away and continued to question them.

So what have the BMJ featured instead?

For a start we have to congratulate Fiona Godlee and team for allowing the anti msbp group the oxygen of publicity. Rapid Responses were directly responsible for David Southall's downfall by the mere nature of connecting people with dubious alliances. Of course, while giving these vexatious GMC complainants the oxygen of publicity, they ignored the real concerns in the NHS eg patient deaths.

So that is the BMJ all over for you. When Fiona Godlee came to the helm of the BMJ, she believed what the rest of the world said about me including Dr Neil Bacon. We have to admit the Doctors Only website and their connections did a fantastic job of character assassinating a whistleblower. I noted that this Doctors Only website supported Margaret Haywood. The reality of course is that it has never supported any whistleblowers.

The BMJ has spent years banning anything I have written even innocent comments on Rapid Responses. Cleverly, colleagues posted comments on my behalf to test this and low and behold what I wrote under their names was published! You have to laugh really because the BMJ is so predictable. You have to understand the BMJ, it has a committee controlled by those with vested interests. One such large amphibian is Dr Brian Keighley, a man with a dubious personal life but nevertheless a doctor on the committees of both BMA and GMC. These dual interests have an influence on how editorials are featured and what is written.

The Telegraph featured the BMJ piece recently. Yes, we know that the whistleblowing story is milked dry until journalists have to squeeze what little they understand of it into a new format. And this is what you see in the Telegraph. Nevertheless, we must applaud Fiona Godlee with a slow clap for finally coming to terms with the world's view that only one whistleblower exists in the entire NHS. That person is Margaret Haywood. The BMJ states

"An editorial in the journal warns that the "next" hospital scandal like that of Stafford, where up to 1,200 patients died as a result of poor care, is "probably already happening" because staff are too frightened to speak out"

We have to ask ourselves some salient but uncomfortable questions about the BMJ? Where were the BMJ when Ward 87 happened? Where were the BMJ when the evidence came out for Ward 87? If the BMJ had done their job, would more than 2000 people have died in Staffordshire? Is it so uncomfortable for them that after 10 years, I was proven right. Just happens that I don't quite fit into to the "victim whistleblower role".

Then we have to ask ourselves what the Telegraph did in the year 2000. Yes, we know they had substantial amounts of information provided to them by Amit Chaudhari, their then journalist. What was it that the Telegraph had to say - to quote the editor here " It is all very medical and I don't understand it. Dr Pal probably has a axe to grind?" So we have to ask ourselves whether the deaths of 2000 people may have been prevented?

So, yes let us question the conduct of these publications and be outspoken about it. Let us ask about the role of journals and the media in raising important concerns. Let us ask whether they play a role in actively silencing whistleblowers - they certainly silenced me. Lets say something uncomfortable and tell them that North Staffordshire was about 10 minutes away from Stafford. In the old days, it was all run by the same health authority. So, lets ask why the medical media walked passed Ward 87 in 1998?

And these are uncomfortable questions that no one wishes to respond to do they - Fiona, Richard, Kamran and the Telegraph editors? Because in the end it is all about assessing personalities, character assassinations and degrading whistleblowers - as opposed to understanding what they are trying to tell you :).

2000 plus people are dead aren't they Richard Smith? What is your role in it? :)

Fairy God Mother

I was editing a piece by Angus Dei early this morning and it reminded me of the student I had funded many years ago. I remembered that she was in dire need of finances and without it she would have had to have pulled out of her college course. For the sake of this piece, we will call her Mary Ann.

Mary Ann was a teenager, her mother worked hard to support both children. Mary Ann had been desperate enough to fight the status quo and do something for herself. She struck at the government policy on student debts publicly and requested funding. Apparently, no one had come forth to fund her so I did. So for three years I funded her and during Christmas, a little extra went her way.

Sadly, once I was fired in 2007 courtesy of the GMC, that funding stopped in the last three months of her education. Nevertheless, Mary Ann made it to graduation and I was glad to have helped her on a monthly basis. She obtained her degree in the Arts and is probably now working at an excellent place. I am very proud of her actually. I think that amongst all the people I have assisted, she was one of the very best. A young lady with self belief and confidence to take strides into the future to beat the system. A system that was set up to fail her.

Now, it shouldn't have been up to me to have supported her. I believe the small grant of £100 per month for her at the time plus extras was enough to tide her through. When we read about the greed of the MPs, we should ask them why they did not fund Mary Ann. Mary could have been any student in the UK. Why should MPs be able to comfort spend when people are suffering like this?

Mary Ann's name for me was Fairy God Mother. I recall her being utterly elated when the funding was agreed. This amused me greatly but I was in admiration of the fact she picked herself up and went in search for help in order to fix her life. She wanted to better herself and be the best. Indeed, in the end she achieved that with a little help from me. Perhaps the MP with the duck pond house could think about this issue. They should think about why someone had to fund this young lady and why students often live in poverty.

In my time in medicine, I funded many patients out of my own pocket for basics such as food. Crisis Loans are slow and painful for them and in the meantime, people need food, water and shelter. The point is though, we shouldn't have to do this. It should be the government's job. Perhaps it is the silent poverty that remains unnoticed by the government. Or perhaps, that world is irrelevant to the MPs today.

David Southall to Appeal

Anti Msbp Group Hunting Down David Southall

Rumour on the grapevine is that David Southall is due to appeal his judgment. It is a real tragedy that the real case was never heard and evidence not considered. I love the way Ms M is portrayed as some innocent bystander when Dora Black says something completely different about her. Then North Staffordshire NHS Trust know about that :). It is quite amusing that the GMC portrays a witness in an angelic manner. The anti msbp group has gone some way into concealing the actual documentation on Ms M. Indeed, the hapless North Staffordshire NHS Trust weighed in to threaten me with litigation if the details were found on the internet. I didn't have to feature it of course and indeed I didn't. Nevertheless, it isn't my problem if their legal team can't track down the actual person[s] responsible for data leaking. Afterall, everything leaks these days.

So we ask ourselves, what could they all be concealing? That would be Dora Black's comments and internal documentation perhaps?. I am very surprised that his two QCs did not use this documentation to challenge the credibility of the main witness. This case of course means that chaperones will not be believed in any setting. So it is quite a damaging verdict.

I think it is great that David Southall is appealing. I should though say that his campaign group PACA has been a catastrophic failure in defending him or making the public understand child protection. The holier than thou approach that exudes the arrogance of senior doctors clearly has not worked at all.

Any failure in these court hearings should be laid partly at their door because it is clear they have been unable to communicate the importance of child protection to the general public which include the judiciary. PACA have stuck to their safe haven ie the BMJ and failed to progress out of the BMJ to communicate the importance of the child protection with the outside world. I suspect progress by them is measured by how many articles are printed by Fiona Godlee but in truth few people read it now apart from die hard academics. The world has indeed changed when it comes to communication. This lack of insight of PACA will cause the downfall of David Southall but I suspect David would want it that way. For some reason there does not appear to be an approach to examine the faults in their own campaign. Their aim is to examine the faults of the rest of the system. The system may be faulty but the biggest problem at present lies in the lack of communication between child protection professional and the public. More importantly, PACA's failure to address the catastrophic problems faced by those who are cleared by the courts ie the post child protection investigation effects have not placed them in a good light. What we have here is an campaign group living in their own ivory tower with a failure to understand what the public need to understand. Without that communication, children will continue to die.

I have written on David Southall throughout all his previous hearings bar this one. My logic was that PACA should be able to fight their own battles for once. I was very saddened to hear of the verdict only because everyone deserves a fair trial and David Southall did not get one due to a multiplicity of factors such as prior vilification by the media, negligence in due process by the General Medical Council, failures by his defence union to curb negative publicity and the list could go on. Whats my perspective on this?

Well, I believe that David Southall has been a victim of a well coordinated and orchestrated campaign led by Penny Mellor. Her technique which is very effective is to coordinate multiples of complaints against one doctor. The GMC's logic is that the more complaints a doctor has, the more likely they are to take that doctor down the fitness to practise processes. The GMC manufactures facts, often lies outrageously and cobbles together cases for a proper hanging in the public fora. This satisfies the public appetite. The complexity of child protection makes matters worse since David Southall's case is full of misunderstandings, factual inaccuracies, faulty assessments and to top it all off a faulty legal system. Essentially, David didn't stand a chance, not without a effective campaign by PACA. As that didn't happen, it wasn't possible to dispel myths created in the case. As matters progress down the GMC's inept procedures, a lie becomes a fact and the progress of this is amazing. So, the above processes provide those with a vendetta with an open season of repeated complaints with nothing at the GMC to prevent them. The methodology used by the anti msbp group is also used by Scientology. It is probably a mere coincidence that Penny Mellor is a Scientology award winner. The yodas there have taught her well - well enough to render straight line thinkers such as PACA redundant. PACA fail to understand that the greatest challenge to the Scientology methodology is opposition publicity.

So overall, the anti msbp group led by Penny Mellor is a tactical campaigning group which takes advantage of the system faults and is very effective in doing so. This is one example but while we could lay the blame at her door [ and I frequently do], the broader picture is a system problem. She simply accentuates the system flaws for us, a catalyst if you like. It has taken me a while to understand that Mellor could be anyone. There are many other people with personality disorders who abuse the system. The problem lies with the General Medical Council and the very nature of the courts - both systems just do not work effectively at all.

The Independent has the best write up on child protection. Lawrence has some insight into the matters at play. I probably have more insight because I have been caught in the crosswinds of the methods used by the anti msbp group. I can therefore confirm that a complaint in its simplest form causes undue questions in the mind of those uneducated in the ways of medicine or medical careers. Therefore from a misinterpretation by the complainants, to a lack of knowledge by the GMC, to a lack of knowledge by the GMC legal team, to a lack of knowledge by counsel for the GMC.

The complaint by Mellor was that I cannot call myself a Psychiatrist because I was not on the specialist register. This was interesting as she failed to understand that more than 1000 doctors are deemed Psychiatrists without being on the specialist register.

Shaw QC Counsel for the GMC fell head first when he admitted that I was a "psychiatric doctor" [Adjournment application]. A few days late the GMC stated in a email to a different person

"A psychiatric doctor – or psychiatrist – is a doctor who has undergone basic medical training then specialises in psychiatry, that is treating people affected by mental illness"

In the end, the judge in the case R v GMC Ex Parte Pal was so confused that he never ruled on this point. If Mr Shaw's logic and Penny Mellor's logic is right then 1000 plus doctors would be investigated by the GMC :) on Stream 1 in order to make up for the lack of knowledge of those initially assessing a complaint at the GMC. Lets face it, the airhead Anna Neill much like Mellor had no idea that Psychiatrists don't have to be on the specialist register. And we know that because Ben Goldacre isn't on the specialist register :). I am positive Ben would object to being dragged down Stream 1 because the Registrar had no idea about the definition of a Psychiatrist.

That is simply a mild description of how a simple allegation can be blown out of proportion. What really amused me was that following this issue, the Trust I was working at changed the titles to Staff Grade Practitioner :) :)>. And that is what happens with a series of numskulls running the GMC plus the NHS. They follow each other around like Pavlovs dogs, digging one hole after another.

This example is a simple one that clearly shows how allegations without merit can be blown out of proportion as they progress down the systems - from the GMC to the Courts. Then, you have to witness the stupidity of the GMC to really believe it.

Reinstate the Nadine Dorries Blog.

I had never heard of Nadine Dorries. That is probably because she is a Conservative MP and I pay little attention to MPs these days. Everyone knows why, I consider most of them [ especially mine] to be a waste of space and largely ineffective. I may be indifferent to Nadine, nevertheless news in the blogsphere is that she has been shut down or silenced.

On May 22nd 2009 Nadine Dorries called the expenses scandal, a Witch hunt. Well, she ought to ask her party how much actual assistance they have ever given whistleblowers then she would know what a witch hunt really was. Nadine also wrote various comments on her blog. Apparently, the Telegraph have ensured that no blog exists. That is curious for heavy weight lawyers since they forgot the cache.

No one approved of Nadine's remarks but we live in a democracy - supposedly and she is entitled to say whatever she wishes without interference from the powers that be. NHS Blog Doc makes a few rufflings. His boy pals stick around in a clique protecting free speech. Only when it applies to them I suspect. The rest of us are branded " outspoken". And NHS Blog doc should remember that when his own colleague was taken down by the GMC due to a "LINK" he failed to support or feature it. I always think we need some reality check here for the boys and their Spartacus Syndrome. How far do they go to protect free speech. Actually, not that far.

Dizzy has the best summary on this subject.

I certainly know that while many of us support Dorries' Article 10 HRA rights, if any of us were smited down by the great gods of the planet UK, Dorries would have done nothing about it. We know that because she is an MP. MPs do nothing about anyone. In general, I believe they don't consider bloggers to be " real writers".

Anyway, this is good case law for the fat lawyers.

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

The quote is

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

As for the Telegraph, I have had many blogs on My Telegraph related to Ward 87 matters removed by the moderators.

A quote on My Telegraph "Rita Pal's blogs were deleted in minutes for far less offensive content "

Well, I wasn't willing to cope with the dysfunctional Telegraph moderators hence I left.

Worcestershire Mental Health Partnership Admits Shortfalls in Care

Worcestershire Mental Health Trust Management :)

Today is a rather lovely sunny day. I really should not be writing in the garden while sunning myself but us ethnic minority whistleblowers need to keep those melanocytes active. The post was interesting today. I was sent a letter from Worcestershire Mental Health Trust moaning like a bunch of old women. They apparently don't want me to write about them. I understand that but I can ignore them. The more they whinge, the more I plan to write about it.

So here I am writing about them again. For those who don't know about it, Worcestershire Mental Health Trust is one I had locumed for in 2006 and 2007. A GMC investigation put me on their number one hit list. Well, I can't blame them really. It must be awful to be a Trust responsible for so many fatalities, having to tell the media how great you are when the staff know that the Trust management is a resounding "thumbs down". Worcestershire Mental Health Partnerships has problems. I have always held the view that you get more sense out of the patients there than the management. The Trust didn't take well to the GMC investigation. They panicked and fired me then stood in silence while I was cleared six months later. Having fired me, the great nellies decided to run around like headless chicken concealing their misdemeanors. They decided that firing me would mean huge liability consequences for them. This may be so but it is almost laughable watching this Trust react with the motive of preserving their money.

You can see Ros switching on the broken record and telling everyone how great the Trust is. She does it each time the Trust is criticised. Her poor leadership is of course the reason why Worcestershire Mental Health Trust colluded with their pals at GMC Towers in a case that didn't actually concern them. It is this sheer keeness that amuses me on occasion. I use the term Pavlov's dogs because the GMC can train any Trust to follow them. That is the beauty of having a GMC panellist at the Trust in question. It didn't do any of them much good really. It did though provide more writing fodder.

This is an examination of what happens to many doctors subject to GMC processes. The Trust automatically defaults to the GMC. The fact that the GMC has actually pitched them to be the fall guy in the liability stakes escapes them. Nevertheless, I always watch these patterns of behaviour with a good dose of popcorn. It is a bit like a large drama unfolding slowly. Worcestershire Mental Health Partnership are so predictable of course. It is a great shame for them that I have been sent patient notes of one who committed suicide. The patient is someone other than the person below. It is amazing how much information you can get from people who work at the Trust.

A case that struck me about Worcestershire Mental Health Partnership is this one.

This piece was presented in the Kidderminister Shuttle.

WORCESTERSHIRE Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust has admitted there were shortfalls in the services provided to Leon Laga, who died outside Kidderminster Police Station three years ago.

Mr Laga, of Bewdley Hill, suffered from mental illness since he was 17. He was found slumped on the police station steps with a cigarette in one hand and a lighter in the other after taking an overdose on January 15, 2005.

A coroner’s inquest yesterday recorded a narrative verdict on his death.

Mick Mather, director of integrated mental health services at the trust, said:

“We recognise that the documentation in relation to Leon’s care fell short of the standards we aim to provide. We also accept that there were shortfalls in the communication between the professional staff involved and systemic failures in regard to care planning and review.”

Mr Laga had a history of self harming and had a problem with alcohol, which he would drink in a binge fashion, the inquest heard.

Dr Ros Keeton, chief executive of the mental health trust, said: “We offer our most sincere apologies to Leon’s family and friends. We hope they can accept our assurance that the trust has made substantial improvements in the years since Leon’s death.

“We would like to point to the recent Healthcare Commission report, which stated that the quality of our services is now excellent. We hope this will reassure other service users that our support structures and services are now fit for purpose.”

So just for Ros Keeton, the hapless Chief Executive, we had to put together a nice little feature detailing their more recent efforts. There was of course the series of suicides that happened up until 2008.

The Trust is a little coy about their suicide rate :).

Ranting Writes

Dr Rant has the right idea. This was such a good post that I had to write about it. This is what Rant babe had to say.

Poor little Tory MP (and former nurse) Nadine Dorries has been bleating about the effect of the recent expenses fraud furore is having on the MPs themselves. They don't like being tarred with the same brush as everyone else, and she's worried that some might commit suicide.

Let's recap shall we?

Over the years there have been a number of medical scandals (Bristol, Alder hey, Shipman, Stafford). Often MPs and ministers have been the first to leap onto the bandwagon, condemning everyone involved BEFORE all of the facts are known. There has then usually been a knee jerk reaction 'to stop it ever happening again' which has been invariably ill thought out or positively bad for medicine, research and the public.

And lets recap further, the suicide rate and mental health problems for doctors who faced the MMC fiasco was phenomenally high.1 in 5 doctors thought about committing suicide during this fiasco. Most people forget the leading Royal College of Psychiatrists study. Indeed, Liam Donaldson and cronies are directly responsible for this and should be held to account by the GMC. I am not sure Remedy UK added this argument within their case but they should.

"Almost 700 doctors were questioned by the Royal College of Psychiatrists about how their wellbeing was affected by the botched recruitment process.

More than 30,000 doctors are fighting for around 22,000 training posts, and the online selection procedures have been strongly criticised.

Preliminary results from the survey found that 21 per cent of junior doctors have had suicidal thoughts as a result of the scheme.

Some 94 per cent reported higher stress levels than normal, and 90 per cent of these put this down to the recruitment process.

A third said they had drunk more in the past six months and others have shown symptoms of anxiety, depression, sleep disturbance, a sense of hopelessness, less fulfilling sex, lack of appetite and tearfulness"

I have been meaning to write about the above for a while now. I think many people underestimate the detrimental impact of the MMC on a large proportion of junior doctors. I know the GMC certainly do not have an idea about the catastrophic impact on juniors. At present, the senior doctors responsible have not been held accountable despite more than two reports criticising their negligent management.

Dr Liz Miller

Well, we all know Liz is a damned good doctor. The above book is essential reading.No doubt her first buyer will be Prof Graeme Catto who is a big fan of hers.

Say Sorry. Get Struck Off

The BMJ presented a piece early this morning about the guidance from the NHS Litigation Authority. It urges doctors to apologise.

Over the last two years we have known two doctors to apologise because they felt it was the decent thing to do. One is S Boardman and the other is Dr Pakistan. The half crazed Trust in Leamington Spa dismissed Boardman and the General Medical Council used the apology to justify their illegal warning on Dr Pakistan. The warning was given for 5 years due to a few emails sent out of work hours to the Royal College of Surgeons.

Both S Boardman and Dr Pakistan are actually innocent hard working doctors trying to do their job. Let that be a lesson regarding the impact of an apology. I have no problem with an apology if it is an admission of severe guilt and the doctor is willing to face the repercussions but I do have a problem with an apology when innocent doctors feel they are obliged to do it. Most have a preconceived idea that an apology will result in some kind of forgiveness. Most often than not, the Trusts or the GMC do not have enough evidence to prosecute therefore they extract an apology to bolster their case.

One of the most idiotic apologies came from Dr Scot Jnr following his post on Doctors.net.uk. If emergency mass defence mechanisms had not been put in place, Scotty would be out of a job today. His misguided apology had all of us running around. We all had to forgive him of course because surgeons often think only in straight lines and not laterally.

So before apologising - think before you act. It may save you some disastrous consequences in the long run. In a complaint described by Jobbing Doctor, an apology would signify an admission of liability and if that is done in a complaint that has no evidence to sustain it, it would be a complete and utter disaster for the doctor.

Disgraceful

I was reading The Lawyer today over lunch while munching on my ciabatta bread. I found this extract which was quite shocking really :-

"The internal complaints ­system is being undermined by an increasing public ­awareness of cases such as Dr D, which involved a village GP whose career was effectively wrecked by the ­maladministration of a futile complaint surrounding a short ­reprimand by the GP to a patient who had been rude to a nurse.

10-month inquiry followed. Seven years - and a mental breakdown on the part of the GP - later, the Health Ombudsman found that the GP had been the victim of ­”significant injustice” perpetrated by the two ­primary care trusts that dealt with the complaint.

And this is what I mean by the impact of inertia by the medical profession. It takes one minute to fall accidentally into trouble and a decade to sort the problem out. I hope Jobbing Doctor features the above to support his fellow GP. I suspect no manager was held accountable. Nothing new then.

MMC. Skeletons in the Closet

Liam's Date for the Evening

Remedy UK have made some excellent progress in discovering what a malicious, lying, manipulative medical hierarchy we have living at the Department of Health. Nothing new of course. We all knew that ten years ago. Indeed, us older docs were rather surprised that the MMC was even allowed to be implemented despite objections.

Perhaps this new information will act as an incentive to the GMC to exercise their discretion in investigating the conduct of Liam Donaldson and pals. Infact this behaviour is an attitudinal problem that is currently bringing the profession into disrepute and as the GMC will recall acutely, anything can be misconduct these days.

Not only had the crooks failed many juniors before the MMC but they have caused devastation to many of the younger generation of doctors post MMC. Then many doctors simply trusted the powers than be and walked into the disaster head first. It is not as if they had much choice. There are many systems like the MMC in progress. One of them is Revalidation. Much like the advent of the MMC, everyone sat still and watched it happen then discovered the corrupt behaviour only after it was too late. There appears to be one problem with the grass roots medical profession, they are awful at predicting the future but continue to be reactive as opposed to proactive. The same will happen with Revalidation but then everyone is asleep yet again.

Remedy UK does an excellent write up . It is worth a read and I am positive Liam Donaldson isn't feeling well at this point in time. Perhaps he should take up dating skeletons again. After all, he has many rattling in his closet.

House of Lords on Whistleblowing

This is quite hilarious, this is Baroness Llandalf who asks a question in the House of Lords . Baroness Finlay makes some interesting noises for senior doctors. When Andrew Mitchell MP sent her some material relevant to the GMC concerning me, she didn't respond to him for a year or more. What she did do was destroy the documentation and then write to Andrew Mitchell MP to tell him that she had destroyed them.

She was also involved in the development of the new Act that governs doctors. So if it all goes pear shaped we all know who to blame.

Anyway, here are her useless exchanges in Parliament. Lord Darzi sits and crows away about legislation he has no understanding of PIDA does not protect you while you are in employment, the person has to litigate and then win to engage it.

"To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they will take to ensure that whistle-blowing in the NHS is not discouraged by fear of loss of professional registration"

Just to show how useless Darzi is, here is his response.

Lord Darzi of Denham (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health; Labour) | Hansard source

The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA) gives full protection of the law to staff who whistleblow in the public interest and the penalties for those who penalise staff for doing so are potentially very severe. The department has therefore, in light of the Act, made it clear that every National Health Service trust should have in place local policies and procedures that comply with the Act. Decisions on professional registration are made by independent regulatory bodies, not the Government, but we would expect them to make their decisions cognisant of a national context that encourages whistleblowing.

In conclusion, the government allows the regulatory bodies to do what they want.

NHS Whistleblowing. The Debate in Parliament

We should make a note that Andrew Mitchell of the Conservatives did not raise the issue of Whistleblowing in Parliament. He is of course my MP. The person who thankfully did is Richard Taylor of Wyre Forrest.

Ben Bradshaw is often extremely amusing, conveniently brushing away from Ward 87 and pretending it doesn't exist. That OK Ben, we know how embarrassing it is for you to have to admit your Department did nothing when concerns were raised in the year 1999.

The Debate can be accessed here.

"Dr. David Colin-Thomé, the Government's GP tsar, wrote in the introduction to his review of the lessons learned in mid-Staffordshire:

"What has particularly shocked and disappointed me is that no NHS organisations, staff or representatives of the public reported any serious concerns about emergency services in the hospital. Yet patient complaints and patient surveys all pointed to poor care."

Ben Bradshaw - then admits that Public Concern at Work works hand in hand with the Department of Health. As everyone will know there have been phenomenal complaints about the ineffectiveness of PCAW.

"We have also commissioned a charity that specialises in the issue called Public Concern at Work. It provides an independent helpline that is staffed by lawyers with expertise in whistleblowing. That is available to all NHS staff and calls are treated in the utmost confidence"

Ben then goes onto say

"Since the report was published, there have been suggestions that some staff did raise concerns but were not listened to. I urge anyone who has had experience of that or has had it reported to them to bring evidence of such examples forward."

Then

"I hope that I have made it absolutely clear to the hon. Gentleman, both in my general remarks and in what I had to say about the Margaret Haywood and Stafford hospital cases, that the Government fully support whistleblowing. We have provided unprecedented legal protection for those who whistleblow and have emphasized those rights in the new NHS constitution. We will not tolerate management that bullies or discourages whistleblowers. Listening to and acting on the concerns of staff are vital ways to drive up standards and help ensure against poor or unacceptable quality care"

Ben Bradshaw still continues to ignore Ward 87 despite it being brought to his attention a number of times. We wonder why. Perhaps it is another Bradshaw Brain bubble.