Bloggers are authors of their own destiny

The Guardian had an interesting piece on bloggers.

Certainly a fascinating read.

For me, it prevented me from being struck off the GMC Register. I am one of the few whistleblowers without a disciplinary sanction on their heads. When coping with establishment mobbing, the internet often acts as a good deterrent. I don't just fight on paper - I fight in every way available to me.

It ensured that am in contact with huge numbers of doctors and the public and secondly, it keeps me going. I value my colleagues who are medical bloggers and even though I have no idea who they are, we keep a good pulse on the current state of play. I find blogging acts to formulate my ideas and to increase my knowledge. My knowledge of various issues has probably hiked up considerably since I have been blogging. I think faster, formulate ideas better and can probably debate successfully with anyone. At least I have the confidence to do so. This is the benefit of sharing ideas online. It is therefore the best self development tool.

For all whistleblowers, I would recommend your own publicity bandwagon. Never trust the media.

I think your own brand of publicity is the only way to survive in this rough terrain for whistleblowers. The odds are stacked against every single whistleblower. Raising the various issues online acts as a deterrent for those who would otherwise attempt to sink you. Publicity in this way is therefore a very good weapon.

I blog for me and it is a side effect that other people read it.

Shameless and Mischievous

i

This year, I promised myself I was going to be a good girl. I had to look that definition up in the dictionary because I clearly had no idea about the meaning of it. It was suggested to me that I had indeed grown up!? and that I should stop gnawing at the establishment's flaws. Firstly, I have always remained about 19 and I appear not to have aged. Sadly, even my brain works just as fast as it did then. I suspect being a whistleblower of years gone past hasn't helped because it means I don't actually give a damn about political correctness.

While my collective peers are busy making babies and wondering about their biological clocks, my hobby after midnight is dissecting the medical underworld. It is probably a dangerous hobby but one that is quite interesting. Everyone should have the knowledge of why things around them happen. Some say that to understand the present and the future, one must understand the past.

Having a relatively photographic memory has its advantages. Firstly, good looking men are always imprinted in my mind. Some things are important and perhaps vital. These things are a priority so I think about Hugh Jackman before anything on this post. In the old days, it was Harrison Ford but men get crumply with age and we all have to adapt.

Secondly, I often remember what I have read about 10 years ago. And this is what happened late last night with the name Sandy Macara. The vague memory of him being with the BMA and the General Medical Council sprung to mind while I was watching Sky News and munching on my maltesers.

Having served the establishment doctors for the term of his BMA life, Sandy [ much like Donald Irvine ex President of the GMC] had changed sides and gone to the Patients Association. So there he was as a Trustee. I was a little shocked because I thought Sandy had retired to gardening and a nursing home. Apparently, there is till life in the old dog yet. Kitted out with his silk handkerchief and smart suit, Macara parades himself as the patient saviour. Of course, he isn't one, we all know that.

Sandy, also known as Alexander happens to be a Freemason. He hasn't declared this because he probably thinks the public may not approach the Patients Association if they knew that the biggest establishment honcho was getting access to their data. I have nothing against freemasons but they can be a bit annoying when they start playing the same games as described in Stephen Knights The Brotherhood. I read the book in about 2001 following the BBC piece on Freemasons at the GMC. The issue about the Brotherhood is that it opens your eyes to some of the tactics used in medicine. Medical Freemasons are essentially protectors of the establishments interests. Have I been subject to their tactics? Who knows but if I have been, their tactics haven't quite worked. Recognition of the tactics used by Freemasonry is essential to any doctor in the NHS.

Anyway, like Lord Walton who must be about 200 years old, Sir Sandy will one day probably reside with him in a crypt known as the House of Lords. Lord Walton was the ex President of the General Medical Council. Under his reign numerous doctors went down without due care for their human rights. The problem with these crumply old men is that they swan around high places and assume that respect should be handed on a plate to them.

The usual traits of those who reside in the medical crypts of the hallowed halls is that they all have the opportunity of strengthening the Medical Act 1983 into something that controls doctors so much so that they have no freedom. The Medical Act 1983 today was developed by none other than ex GMC President Lord Walton who discussed the various aspects at the House of Lords debates. For anyone wondering why the disciplinary situation is so bad, all of you now know where to look. While all this was being done in the name of medical regulation, most doctors accepted it all silently. Now prices are being paid, in some cases with their livelihoods. The reason for this is to set an example for the rest of the working doctors - that they should not step out of line or criticize the status quo. Essentially, the Medical Act 1983 has become a livelong imprisonment should you accept its terms. Lord Walton may not be President of the GMC, he is though more powerful because he controls legislation by influencing debates. It isn't known whether Walton was also a freemason but the probability is high.

We should credit old Sandy for the following

From the BMJ

" The only public health doctor on the GMC, and Former Chairman of the BMA Council, Sir Alexander Macara said that he was out of tune with the current GMC Leadership and had called for the consultation document on revalidation to be referred back. He said he was disturbed by the impression that no reforms were made before the case of the paediatric heart surgeons of Bristol. There had been support for reaccreditation and the previous president had introduced the performance review procedures. The pace of the reforms might have been faster but the intention was there" he said. Sir Alexander Macara queried whether revalidation was necessary now that clinical performance and appraisal had been proposed"

Sandy will of course be aware that the Bristol Surgeons were apparently originally found not guilty by the panel. Rumour has it that Donald Irvine decided to take the panellist to one side and instigate a change of verdict. I am of course happy for anyone at the GMC to correct me on this.

The first job of revalidation is to probably to assess Sandy's ability to assess statistics at the Patients Association. At present, the Trustee of the Patients Association who is a public health expert appears to have got his figures tits up :). Of course, the responsibility for faulty statistics falls on the Trustees themselves. If a asian junior doctor made this mistake, the GMC would wave its flag citing that it can caught a doctor as part of its target practice. They would then hang that doctor in their public gallows and laugh.

Sandy though will float in and out of the Patients Association complete with silk handkerchief. Status does this to people. Their serene outlook is a example of decadence, Earl Grey tea and intellectual discussions on neat tables dressed with fine cutlery. These were though the men responsible for the NHS as it is today.

Perhaps this piece is not a "measured approach" or a "temperate" one but it is spot on :). Bit shameless and mischievous though much like my efforts to join the masons and the BNP :). Apparently, I am not to be allowed membership and I can't think of a reason why this would be so :).

Upset

This week three of my medical friends have been subjected to Interim Order Panels at the General Medical Council. I just feel this is outrageous. Not only are IOP's illegal but these three doctors have never had any problems with patient safety. All three have been subjected to Interim Order Panels because they are politically incorrect. Or shall we say the GMC are hounding them because they are outspoken about a number of issues. Two have been dropped by their defence union and one still has his defence union in tact.

I am upset about it because out of all the bad doctors out there who end patient lives, neglect them etc, it is only the good doctors who end up at Interim Order Panels. None of these doctors are there because of patients complaints. They are all there because their medical directors took hum bridge and sold them out to the General Medical Council. Following their initial investigation which had to be disclosed to other employers, the other employers hyper scrutinised them. Having done so, they handed the doctors back to the General Medical Council on a plate.

Their fates are uncertain and as Bad Medicine points out, at present they are constructively erased, probably unemployable and have their careers minced by the General Medical Council. Careers of course mean livelihoods. Ruining someone's livelihood is not a simple thing to be overlooked. Sadly, for the GMC, they admitted in a courtroom that employment prospects etc was not their responsibility. Of course, the GMC ought to understand that they can't "control" the world and this is not the way to behave towards good doctors.

Anyhow, we are clearly going through dangerous territory. Reports from the Society of Clinical Psychiatry suggest that the problem is more widespread.

I am really upset today for my colleagues - because they are all fighting a losing battle. I know what a losing battle it is because I have fought part of it. The Medical Act 1983 is all powerful. This makes the GMC all powerful. They abuse the words - patient safety and public interest . Soon, innocent junior doctors are going to get their heads locked in the GMC chopping block. Legally, there is little hope of recovery from these situations. The GMC have manipulated themselves into a situation where their is little chance of seeking a remedy.

RCN, NMC and Peter Clark

Now, if the truth be known, I quite like Peter Clark. I think he tries to do a good job under quite difficult circumstances. What amuses me about the nursing profession is this, when bad nursing is proven, few do anything.

Now, this is the evidence on Ward 87. There are actually 2 reports on how substandard the nursing care was and how bad the management was.

The nursing profession aren't all bad. I do though think that government mismanagement and funding problems, increases in paperwork has led to the service being stretched. Ward 87 though had a combination of factors - malicious nurses and poor management. That is quite rare. I have never seen such nurses anywhere else in the NHS. There are simply pockets of bad nurses much like there are doctors. At least RCN stuck up for their whistleblower and they try and do things right. It is much more than the medical profession has done for all their whistleblowers. They tend to be ostriches and hide away denying that serious problems exist when whistleblowing.

I also don't think Claire Rayner's onslaught on the nursing profession is fair. Afterall, there is no independent evidence verifying the tales of the unexpected as touted by Rayner on the Patient Association website. It is notable that no media outlet actually cares about the statistics. Since, I mocked the Patient Associations misleading statistics yesterday, I note the Times has come up with a more softer version of the statistics. It is rather startling that when a doctor touts stories like this, he or she must have an axe to grind and when the public do this, they must be right. To be honest while I have every sympathy for the 16 patients and their relatives touted by the Patients Association, I note the same demands for evidence and independent inquiries are not required. Any member of the public can go to a newspaper, present their perception of what happened and it will be believed and published. In reality though, the public have a completely different perception of bad care, they often misinterpret the care given by doctors. They are only a handful who will take the time and evidence base their allegations. There are therefore dangers in relying on subjective reporting. The fact is that the Patient Association does not show that 1 million patients are subjected to neglect. The facts are that they provide the tales of 16 patients and use the Inpatient Survey Results done by the NHS to justify their 16 cases. Extrapolating these figures and misleading the public is simply unforgivable.

The bottomline is that we all have 16 or more cases to tout around. Not all of us extrapolate that figure to 1 million patients.

The Patients Association attempted to mimic the Death by Indifference document for Learning Disabilities. The good thing about Death by Indifference is they did not make wild allegations and statistical extrapolations.

And then there is Ward 87. Now Ward 87 had case after case after case. Its reign of neglect continued since 10 years before me and 7 years after me. Well, there are two independent reports. There is a damning report from the nurse who assessed it but no one thought to do a broader data study.

During the main drafting of the 2001 report both the NMC and the RCN were present. It is now 2009, no charges have been brought against any of the nurses. After gruffing and whining that they couldn't find the nurses, a decade or more later, the NMC have sat down to read the report and investigate Ward 87. So we should remember that this isn't just me saying " ah the care is poor" or filling in a survey, its really about other nurses saying how bad the situation was.

This isn't an obsession as everyone would like to believe. It is really about accountability. It is about the fact that despite two damning reports, the powers that be simply sat around, sagely nodded and moved along. So every year since 2005, I have communicated with the NMC in about April each year. This is partly to observe how long accountability takes and it is also to monitor their attitude to poor care. In summary, I can say the NMC is probably grossly careless with their complaints. They were though very keen to take up Undercover Nurse and strike her off the Register and they did that in record time. In the meantime, the malicious vindictive nursing staff on Ward 87 continue to work in the NHS.

GMC's Scenario on Whistleblowing.

Shameless organization.
High Rate of Whistleblower Career Assasination

The General Medical Council's Policy Advisor Sharon Burton has been writing in BMJ Careers. I suspect this is to cosy up to the junior doctor population so the GMC is seen as a helpful organisation. One thing you have to remember about the GMC is never to believe what is written on the packet. The GMC will often do quite the opposite.

The General Medical Council have this to offer doctorkind. Even at 5am this morning, I can chuckle to myself and laugh at the scenario on child protection and Whistleblowing. Essentially, in Child Protection, the current law according to the GMC is that if you raise concerns and you are remotely wrong, the doctor can be hauled up in front of the GMC. In addition, if you rely on your chaperone, the Southall case law stipulates that the GMC won't believe them. So, yes, they won't believe your independent witness. They will though believe the lying scheming mother with a long history of dishonesty. I kid you not on this. This is taken directly from GMC v Southall.

They then run this Good Medical Practise Scenario

Dr Kwesi finds that the sterile packs he uses for surgery do not always contain the correct equipment. Colleagues suggest that this could be because the hospital is trying to save money by asking junior staff to fill them. Who should Dr Kwesi speak to? What should he do when the problem continues even after he has raised concerns?

"In a number of high profile cases, failure to report concerns early had serious consequences for patient care. GMC guidance says that doctors will be able to justify reporting a concern—even if it is groundless—if they do so honestly and go through the appropriate channels. In this situation Dr Kwesi reports the errors as an adverse event and tries to resolve the situation locally. When the situation doesn’t improve he speaks to the medical director at the hospital.

Good Medical Practice states that doctors must contribute to adverse event reporting to reduce the risk to patients. Dr Kwesi is doing the right thing in raising the matter. In this scenario the people Dr Kwesi would normally go to are part of the problem. The site draws on GMC advice to suggest that Dr Kwesi is left with no choice but to go outside the organisation and refer his concerns to the Care Quality Commission".

Nice to know the GMC are using that token foreign name to show how good they feel about foreign doctors. The fact that large numbers of foreign doctors are facing the GMC at this point in time is not a talking point for the GMC. Nevertheless, the above scenario is all well and good until

1. The Trust turns around and refers the doctor to the General Medical Council. The GMC will likely take the complaint up and will not listen to the doctors screams of raising patient concerns. They will then justify their action by using the " patient safety" excuse.

2. The General Medical Council regularly investigates and harasses Whistleblowers. Afterall, we know of the 2 year discreet inquiry conducted against me. Their justification in court was that my letter writing "tone" was not as they would like it. Actually, their tone in medical regulation and their catastrophic failures is not something I like either.

Essentially, Raj Mattu, Peter Wilmshurst, Dr S Vaidya, Robert Phipps and myself have all been investigated by the General Medical Council for doing exactly what the GMC suggests in its Good Medical Practise. If in doubt, the GMC rolls out Rule 57. Rule 57 is a nebulous Rule which applies to anything and everything.

"You must make sure that your conduct at all times justifies your patients’ trust in you and the public’s trust in the profession".

And if you examine Rule 52, for a crackpot organisation like the General Medical Council - any conduct can be considered misconduct if the GMC says so. There is no definition of conduct capable of being "misconduct". So, if you raise concerns in good faith, the GMC would reverse an investigation on you making a barrage of allegations. Indeed, Vaidya and Robert Phipps were sanctioned. Their whistleblowing concerns were not considered appropriately by any authority.

As for Ward 87, the General Medical Council refused point blank to investigate the two reports showing the failures in care. The senior doctors responsible for creating the poor standards of care on the Ward remain working without a stain on their character. They were never held accountable for failing to raise the concerns on Ward 87. I was though character assasinated for raising justified concerns about patient safety. Of course, no one has anything to say about this aspect. It was a spectacular fiasco and the GMC know it was. Their interest is not in the patient safety of Ward 87 but hounding me as the Whistleblower. Their two year discreet inquiry without a formal complaint is the disturbing issue here. The GMC does not require a complaint to commence an investigation. I believe many doctors forget that.

And that is how Whistleblowing works in practice. The above shows the GMC does not practise what it preaches and guess what I am not convinced by its use of the token foreign name because their race relations record is dire. If you are a not British, just forget about whistleblowing because the GMC will wash you down with some Cianti. An interesting case on whistleblowing is Eswaran v GMC. This Court of Appeal judicial review analyses the fact that the GMC failed to investigate the justified concerns of Dr Eswaran. His concerns on clinical safety were thrown out at the first stage. The Assistant Registrar in this case was Anna Neil - the lady who also threw out concerns on the MMC in R v GMC Ex Parte Remedy UK.

My theory is that the GMC acts as a primary filter to discourage whistleblowers. It is often very happy to act as an instrument of harassment against them. Their Whistleblowing Protocol can be downloaded here. As Dr Bright states, the GMC fails to recognise medical mobbing and victimisation of the Whistleblower. To them, Trusts are always right and junior doctors are always wrong. The fact remains that what is touted in public is not what happens in practise. Medical culture and the GMC have not changed at all. They are simply better at cosmetically presenting a good show when it comes to the media. There is no recognition for the fact that the GMC itself is an instrument of harassment used against whistleblowers. Leading medical journals fail to address this dimension. Then the BMJ have Brian Keighley on their Committee. Brian is of course a GMC Committee Member and also the screener for Vaidya's complaints. He screened out a number of complaints against senior doctors at Lincolnshire NHS Trust :).

MDU "Quoting Rita Pal v GMC will be seen as confrontational"?! :)

Before Opting for the MDU
Compare the Meerkat.com

Just to clarify a few issues for the defence unions here. I consider all defence unions to be spectacularly bad. They all use the same lawyers - usually Radcliffes Le Brasseur. Most have no insight and they are the reason the General Medical Council and a number of other bodies have remained unaccountable. The MDU does though appear to represent guilty doctors to the end. Their representation of innocent doctors has been relatively substandard.

Indeed, the MDU's recent starring role came in the case of the late Robbie Powell. A boy died but the MDU never apologised.

The MDU infamously represented Harold Shipman. One could ask them the most important question - why did they allow a serial killer to continue working in the NHS? Has anyone pointed their large crooked finger at the MDU? They appear to have crept under the radar with a large angelic halo on their heads.

When you all pick your revalidation folders up - think MDU - because they are the ones who were essentially responsible for it. Had they stopped Harold Shipman earlier in his life, we wouldn't have revalidation. The ironic thing about the MDU is that Harold was under its wings for many years yet they failed to spot a serial killer. I wonder if the rest of their members appreciated funding representation for a murderer? Well, the MDU will be pleased to know that their representation cut down the population of Hyde.

As for innocent doctors, Mr David Johnson's case is a classical example of how badly the MDU behave. It is worth reading this document. It describes the prejudicial material held by the defence union. Johnson sadly lost but at least he made a point about the kind of material held by defence unions that eventually can prejudice representation.

The MDU were also directly responsible for the bad representation given to David Southall. David was struck off.

The errors made by the General Medical Council can be reviewed here. The question we have to ask ourselves is this - why didn't the MDU protect David Southall from these errors? The MDU has never challenged the General Medical Council through the many years of revolving complaints or the defamatory material strewn across the media waves. Their laziness has got a doctor struck off. They can hardly say that their representation was a spectacular success. The select few would say David deserved it, I would say that every doctor deserves a fair trial. David Southall never got one and his defence union is to blame. The MDU had the power to curb the harassment he suffered, they decided not to. What they did was continue the charade.

Sure they think R Pal v GMC 2004 is confrontational - that's because the MDU have never had the imagination to think of it. They have never challenged the GMC. Indeed, they spend their time advising doctors to keep silent and not to be confrontational. Of course, at the end of that if you are struck off or sanctioned, it isn't much use being a quiet little cat.

Pal v GMC 2004 was done without the support of any defence union and on a wild card. Sisters are indeed doing it for themselves and some of us read the law books, developed an argument and decided to strike back. It still remains the only direct onslaught against the GMC since its inception. If there were more onslaughts like that, we would have a better regulatory body for the public and for doctors.

Neither the MDU or the MPS like to admit that there is case law surrounding the processing of false data held by the GMC. It is an important point because every doctor is concerned about prejudicial data affecting their employment prospects. The defence unions are of the view that doctors should be controlled. They should not question their defence unions. If the MDU is questioned or challenged, they usually offer to dump you. I have seen many letters where the MDU has threatened to dump doctors because they are questioned or because the doctor wishes to commence satellite litigation to protect his or her rights. By threatening to assasinate a doctors membership, the MDU effectively control their doctors with a tight reign.

In conclusion, our dysfunctional regulatory body exists because the defence unions have never allowed proper challenge to it. The lawyers they hire are often unintelligent money grabbing airheads and are incapable of thinking out of the box. Their main aim is to ensure they obtain enough money for their summer holidays in the South of France. Few are concerned about the rights of doctors.

Pal v GMC 2004 is a threat to them because it represents one doctor being militant enough to break out of the mould and to do it herself. It is not in the establishment's interests to have more doctors being militant and thinking carefully about their rights. Everyone knows that the MDU, MPS and GMC work hand in hand. They have dual interest panellists and committee members. Everyone can figure out the net result.

And if they find the above confrontational - so be it. When you come to my stage of life - you get seriously pissed off with the spectacular failure of service to vulnerable junior doctors. It is time to stop being Little Ms Nicey Pie and start some serious criticism. In these days of revalidation and its dangers, more doctors will fall victim to their defence unions. Sure, we can all remain silent and debate this politely and intellectually behind closed doors. That doesn't assist our colleagues in the firing line.

The important thing to remember is that the defence unions should not control the doctor - you pay the subs, you call the shots.

While the MDU are busy covering up for guilty doctors, innocent doctors still get a raw deal. We only have to point to the case of Gopakumar to observe another one of their spectacular f*** ups. Gopakumar like every doctor in the UK trusted his defence union. In that case, Christine Lambert represented. Christine can't help acting like a Meerkat and I would suggest that any claimant should ensure they Compare the Market.com before hiring her.

Put it this way, every innocent doctor deserves a Tiger representing them not a half baked mongoose.



.

MPS - Skulking Around being Creepy.

MPS Leadership

Previously on Ward 87, I settled some scores with the MPS. It is best to do these things online because it gives doctors something to think about and it gives the MPS a really bad headache. Sure, I dislike the MPS probably because a decade later, I still have to fight the repercussions of their bad workmanship. One of those repercussions is the false allegation for the matter I was accused of in 1998. So despite having a letter from the Health and Safety Executive citing I was cleared, the defamatory material still continues a decade later. By the way, just for the MPS information, I had to get that letter in 2006 . The MPS simply sat on their bottoms. This is what they always do. Sit around and do sweet FA while the rest of us have complete their unfinished business. Indeed, it was their view that I couldn't achieve total clearance via the Health and Safety Executive. It is simple really, the MPS here can be seen to have a brain the size of a pea and that is being generous. They were unable to think clearly, apply logic and analyze the future repercussions of their actions. So we can safely say that all their neurones were attached but not quite in the right order.

Not content with being a complete bunch of useless pointless pig headed toerags, the Medical Protection Society have decided to spend their time reading this blog today [ see below].

This is the problem with the MPS. They don't have the guts to apologize to me. They don't have the guts to say - "Well, Dr Pal, we could have done things better, lets try and assist you in achieving a modicum of justice"! They don't have the guts to address their spectacular f*** up in 1998 and be supportive of whistleblowers. They could do the " Lets review Dr Pal's case so we learn from our mistakes and know how to assist other whistleblowers".

The MPS won't do any such thing because they are a bunch of stuck up gits who wallow around in their polite meetings, their starched suits and their intellectual pointless conversation. We can all hear it now - " Dr Pal does not have a measured approach and is rather intemperate". Yes, too right, this doctor is rather intemperate. And if this doctor wasn't intemperate, she wouldn't have circumvented the MPS in 1998. If the MPS was a factory, it would have been shut down by now due to poor service. I don't appreciate substandard service or conceited behaviour. I think good doctors deserve better. Secondly, some of us don't need airs and graces to be right.

Anyway, I must admit that intelligence, decency and honesty were never given to the MPS. They simply survive on money, dishonesty, power and greed.

Anyway, here is the MPS skulking around and being creepy.

VISITOR ANALYSIS
Referring Link No referring link
Host Name unallocated.star.net.uk
IP Address 212.125.80.98
Country United Kingdom
Region -
City -
ISP Medical Protection Society Ltd
Returning Visits 0
Visit Length 1 hour 48 mins 22 secs
VISITOR SYSTEM SPECS
Browser MSIE 6.0
Operating System Windows XP
Resolution 1024x768
Javascript Enabled
Navigation Path
Date Time WebPage
24th August 2009 10:04:58 No referring link
ward87.blogspot.com/2009/08/defence-unions-greedily-taking-your.html
24th August 2009 10:37:12 No referring link
ward87.blogspot.com/2009/08/defence-unions-greedily-taking-your.html
24th August 2009 11:06:23 No referring link
ward87.blogspot.com/2009/08/defence-unions-greedily-taking-your.html
24th August 2009 11:11:57 No referring link
ward87.blogspot.com/2009/08/defence-unions-greedily-taking-your.html
24th August 2009 11:16:25 No referring link
ward87.blogspot.com/2009/08/defence-unions-greedily-taking-your.html
24th August 2009 11:43:19 ward87.blogspot.com/
ward87.blogspot.com/2008/08/sleeping-beauty-syndrome.html
24th August 2009 11:49:52 ward87.blogspot.com/
ward87.blogspot.com/2008/08/sleeping-beauty-syndrome.html
24th August 2009 11:51:37 ward87.blogspot.com/
ward87.blogspot.com/2008/08/sleeping-beauty-syndrome.html
24th August 2009 11:52:44 ward87.blogspot.com/
ward87.blogspot.com/2008/08/sleeping-beauty-syndrome.html
24th August 2009 11:52:51 ward87.blogspot.com/
ward87.blogspot.com/2008/08/sleeping-beauty-syndrome.html
24th August 2009 11:52:54 ward87.blogspot.com/
ward87.blogspot.com/2008/08/sleeping-beauty-syndrome.html
24th August 2009 11:52:57 ward87.blogspot.com/
ward87.blogspot.com/2008/08/sleeping-beauty-syndrome.html
24th August 2009 11:53:20 ward87.blogspot.com/
ward87.blogspot.com/2008/08/sleeping-beauty-syndrome.html

GMC's Legal Costs in Pal v GMC.

Mark Shaw QC.
Its not a "Lie". Its a "dispute"

I love this FOIA response from the General Medical Council. Apparently, the public cannot have access to the amount of money the GMC frittered away from doctors subscription funds. That too - in defending a "link" and the fact that a Psychiatrist was indeed a Psychiatrist. In 2007, the GMC got so excited about their complaint that their plan was to Interim Order me and push me down through to a Fitness to Practise hearing. When I stamped on them, they hurriedly dropped the vexatious complaint and cleared me. Having fibbed and cheated all the way to the courts, I simply wanted to know how much this classic act of fibbing cost junior doctors.

GMC Reference number IAT/ME/F09/2250 26th May 2009

You have also asked that you be supplied with details of monies paid to Mark Shaw QC by the GMC in connection with this hearing. Again, I have considered the release of information to you in accordance with the FOIA. I consider, however that this information would also be exempt from release under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 [ FOIA]. The exemption set out in the FOIA is : Section 43(2) - Commercial Interests - this relates to information requested which is held by a public authority and the disclosure of which would, or would be likely to prejudice the commecial interests of any person.

The exemption is not absolute, which means that it is subject to the public interest test. We have undertaken such a test and concluded that the factors against disclosure are stronger than those in favour of release. The GMC is a charitable organisation and we believe that to disclose the amount we spent on obtaining legal assistance for this matter would place us at a disadvantage in the future when we wish to obtain competitive quotes for legal assistance.

The first reason given for non disclosure was that the case was continuing. When the case finished, I requested this again. Clearly, Mark Shaw QC does not want the world to know that he gets paid a fat cheque. And believe me it is a very very fat cheque. In 2004, the GMC was reputed to have spent about half a million on defending a typographical error [ thats legal costs].

Of course, all these simple matters could be settled without resorting to the courts but the GMC insists on spending money. Well, I suspect we shall see what the IC has to say about the above. I believe those who pay their subs have a right to see what the GMC are doing on their behalf. They have the right to see how much of their hard earned finances are being thrown down the drain due to the GMC's arrogance.

Stephanie Bown [MPS] in BMJ Careers Advice

Stupid thick bird Supplied by the MPS

BMJ Careers has an amusing piece on Whistleblowing. I spotted it early today in BMJ Careers. It had interviewed my ex MPS Representative Stephanie Bown. The BMJ piece was actually written very well and had the General Medical Council and the MPS representative essentially lamenting over the state of Whistleblowing. The piece can be read here.

The MPS does not admit that they are incapable of telling the truth. The GMC does not admit that they purposefully develop a vendetta on a whistleblower and ensure they are sanctioned so their concerns are discredited. We just have to look at the case of Mr Robert Phipps to observe this. Robert won his case at the Employment Tribunal but what happened to his concerns? Fell into the black hole of the GMC where all whistleblowing concerns go?

Stephanie Bown is in the article advising on whistleblowing. She was my ex MPS Advisor during the period of whistleblowing who fibbed about representation on Employment issues and who requested concealment of the patient safety issues raised. It should be noted that Steph did not raise these issues with the Department of Health or the General Medical Council. We have to ask her why she purposefully concealed the data from the powers that be? The MPS sought no counsel advice during 1998. They did though supply me with a makeshift lawyer called James Lawson. Both were spectacularly useless.

Yes, in the end, I got myself out of the shit. Had I relied upon them, I would have been a convicted criminal at the local Magistrates Court. It just so happens that I was cleared. And believe me, it wasn't because of their hard work that I was cleared, it happened because I raised the defence of whistleblowing, gave the evidence in and told the interviewers that the Trust had scapegoated me. These were defences that Mr Lawson and Dr Bown had previously decided to conceal. I wrote about my MPS Experiences here. Defying the MPS was probably the best thing I ever did. The problem with the MPS is they can point at many things - but the fact remains that there are two reports verifying that the substantial allegations made by me about Ward 87 were all true. The MPS played no path in achieving this element of justice. Indeed, it was only due to me that the issues were investigated and reports provided. The MPS were quite happy to sit around watching people die. Now that is a important fact - while they advise on raising concerns and patient safety - they purposely decided to sit around and allow patients to be harmed.

As for Stephanie Bown, she should remember what the General Medical Council themselves told the world in the BMJ article

"Although it would be highly unlikely for a doctor to be struck off for not raising concerns, they could be penalised, she adds"

Of course, as fate has it Stephanie Bown, the doctor who did attempt to shut down and conceal the justified concerns [ verified by 2 reports] is now further advising doctors in BMJ Careers Advice on the subject of whistleblowing. This is what happens when you wear a good suit, a cross on your neck and have a posh accent. Your integrity is never questioned. Of course, the only people left to question Dr Bown's integrity is me - because I know exactly what she attempted to do and how she attempted to do it. Essentially, she attempted to shut down and silence a whistleblower. Bown doesn't talk about it anymore because she doesn't have a leg to stand on in this situation. What can she say?

Essentially, we can all conclude that she mismanaged my case. She won't admit it because she wears a cross on her neck and that appears to wash all her responsibilities away. Religion has that quaint manner of cosmetically absolving people of all their responsibilities.

Of course, she should remember that her lack of responsibility and integrity cost many lives on Ward 87 which remained open until 2005 when I got it shut down. Had she followed the correct pathway and raised the concerns on my behalf, many lives could have been saved. It is Bown who has to live with this but then Bown has no conscience because the cross has absolved her of her responsibilities to mankind. She sits around looking pretty while the rest of us maintain patient safety.

Stephanie Bown was also advisor to Saher Sadek, the infamous case where the MPS were beaten to a pulp at the Employment Tribunal and further by a Litigant in Person. Just happens to be a asian junior doctor who beat a leading QC to a pulp in all courts. Despite this, Stephanie Bown still advises the media on medical employment issues like PIDA. It is amazing that she says this

“It is a high test to gain PIDA [Public Interest Disclosure Act] protection so only the rarest of circumstances justify going straight to the media,” says Ms Bown

Lets see, PIDA is a Employment Tribunal Legislation, I thought that Ms Brown stated that the MPS did not do Employment Tribunal related issues?! If they don't do so [ as per record] then how is Ms Bown advising on it?

Of course, the MPS would say I was a disaffected junior doctor. Well, actually thats not quite right, this is a doctor who dislikes the MPS for a spectacular failure in their service. I know that had I been any other junior doctor, I would have been struck off the medical register. This is what happened to Dr Prabhu who relied on their advice. The fact remains, I was never struck off and where other whistleblowers have disappeared, this one remains to ensure that there are repeated reminders to my defence union that they were always wrong. This is done because dishonest people like the MPS have no accountability. They continue sitting in their plush offices, being paid fat cheques out of doctors subscription fees while lying to various people about the nature of their representation. We only have to observe the MPS's dishonest conduct in the Robbie Powell case to note what they are capable of.

And thankgod that I didn't rely on a cross wearing, suited silly bird whose concept of patient safety is to sit around looking pretty. Some of us have more practical concepts, don't wear a suit and can think on our feet. We do the job that the MPS cannot do.

I am surprised that Stephanie Bown has not been fired for her conduct on Ward 87 and in the case of Saher Sadek.

Calling Witchdoctor. Dr No is awake :)

Julia

While Witchdoctor has been concentrating on Ms Crinkly chops [ Julia Middleton], I have pattered over to Bad Medicine to read another masterpiece on Locum Doctors and Trusts.

Witchdoctor shouldn't take Julia Middleton so seriously. Middleton always looks like such a horsey girl with all those teeth. Has someone given her husband some safety instructions? Really, someone should put a sock in it and just tell her to shut up. Ms Common Purpose has some serious problems. Firstly, she needs a makeover and secondly she needs to stop mixing around with these mind bending techniques and leadership courses. Its getting a bit silly now. That is probably because she is a bit silly. Mind you, she is rich and silly which is probably a plus.

Witchdoctor should concentrate on much better pleasantries such as Dr No. Dr No continues to ignore both of us despite the fact his fame is now circling around the blogsphere as are his listings. Dr No appears not to be a sociable character, nor does he interact much with the riff raff. We suspect he may have revalidationitis.

He does though describe Dr Shark.

We have all met Dr Shark. I believe he works in Worcestershire Mental Health Trust. I nearly choked when the word induction was bandied around. Induction?! I doubt I have ever had an induction as a locum, you just jump into the deep end and swim. Ah yes, and you correct everyone elses mistakes while you are there. The Trust's modus operandi is that the locum should be blamed for all their own mistakes. It is a known tactic. After you have cleaned up their dirty linen, you are then called a crap doctor because you are a "locum". This is done by the use of the phrase "only a locum". Sure, a locum that cleans up the mistakes made by the permanent doctors. Quite frankly, I was tired of doing it.

I am going to stop talking about Dr No now. Might move over to Northern Doctor who is much more pleasant and amenable :) although he is currently in swotty mode. Not quite sure what has happened to all the bloggers these days - so serious. I suspect it is revalidation. It appears to have shut all of them up into writing about technical things.

The Defence Unions. Greedily taking your subs then dumping you

My MPS Rep

Liz Miller writes a very good piece on defence unions. Miller is examining the conduct of defence unions.

Well, my own experience with the MPS is well known and probably even legendary. The Medical Protection Society provided a prim dodo called Stephanie Bown and the Medical Defence Union were more concerned about NHS Exposed. I left both of these defence unions in a huff. What I did do is learn to read the law books myself so that I could defend myself in any circumstances.

The Medical Protection Society and Radcliffes were spectacularly bad in my case. They advocated the concealment of whistleblowing evidence, they purposely ensured that despite the fact I was cleared, the hospital and related bodies held damaging information on me. The problem with the MPS is that they always assume they will extract themselves from liability. In my view, the MPS will never extract themselves from liability- not in my case anyway. I find it laughable for the MPS to crow away about patient safety and encouragement of whistleblowing when they can be viewed to have been spectacularly negligent in the case of Ward 87. The MPS told me that they did not represent in Employment issues. That is interesting because Skidmore who happens to sit on their committees was represented to the House of Lords. More recently, there is the case of Mr Lauffer. So we can see the kinds of doctors represented to the hilt by the MPS in Employment issues. The criteria for good representation is being caucasian and being a senior doctor ie a Consultant.

The MPS were given a second go to rectify themselves and of course they miserably failed. It is probably something to do with the Indian turned English bint Priya Singh. Lots of degrees but the neurones don't quite fire in the correct direction. You have to admire women with such a level of intellect who progress to such heady heights. Some interesting aspects of the MPS are featured on this website. Despite the title, MPS Exposed is not written by me. The website details the negligent behaviour of the Medical Protection Society in a number of cases. Priya Singh likes to cherry pick. Perhaps that is what she does while tottering around in her heeled shoes and smart suit. Cherry picking must be a hobby of hers although holding the torch of innocence for Gideon Lauffer is not perhaps the right choice.

All anyone has to do to understand the MPS is read the case of Saher Sadek. If that isn't enough, just read about the case of Tushar Bhadra. The spectacular failure of representation can be viewed in the case of junior doctor Dr Prabhu Satya, who was struck off for minor errors in his UCAS application form. The MPS did not even appeal this case and essentially left him to flounder. Of course, these are all cases of asian junior doctors. This group is classically failed by the MPS.

The MPS insists they are not discriminatory but I suspect they just may be. My own experience of the MPS is poor but that matches up with the experiences of other asian/British asian junior doctors. I know in my case, the MPS attempts avoidance and pretends that Dr Rita Pal does not exist within their sphere, probably because I tend to remind them how crap they truly are and always were. Then I know that they were crap with me because in the end I was an British Asian junior doctor who did my own hearing while their lawyer sat around looking pretty. I am certainly not the sort of person who was going to allow the negligence of my defence union to affect the end result. This robust defence attitude is probably why there is no guilty verdict on my name. That must be such a disappointment to the powers that be because they did try so very hard to get me in the sh*t. Sole dependence on defence unions is a huge mistake for any doctor to make. If you aren't pro-active as a junior, you can be sure your defence union's negligence will sink you. Once that happens, there is no remedy.

Stupidity

No way to treat baby doctors

I don't understand this, the University is responsible for a spectacular clerical error that is now national news and the doctors have to pay the price with sanctions on their record.

The Guardian reports a suspension of the junior doctors involved in the "clerical error" scandal.

What is fascinating is that more reviews have been done of their patients than any other case in the history of medicine. The Guardian goes onto say

"No issues have been raised by clinical staff, or patients, about the work of the individuals concerned. However as a precaution, where appropriate, trusts are reviewing the care of patients seen by the students," said the spokesman, adding that the General Medical Council had been informed"

I noticed that the General Medical Council has never reviewed the work of the doctors involved in Robbie Powell's case. Yes, Robbie Powell is dead.

The work of the consultant on Ward 87 was never reviewed despite two/three reports verifying my concerns. So, these poor juniors work will be heavily frisked despite the fact they would have been heavily supervised. It is probably just the prescribing that needs to be reviewed as you have to be Registered before signing on the dotted line.

So these poor junior doctors will have to suffer a "suspension" on their record when their only crime was to be subjected to a spectacular f*** up by their University. And where is the British Medical Association in all this? Actually, where is the BMA when a junior doctor finds themselves in the sh***.

I trust the juniors will be compensated for the inconvenience and distress caused to them by this clerical error. What a horrific situation to be in.

Rebellion

New Hair and New Teeth?

Well, Bad Medicine has rebelled again. Here he is posting his own variant of the medical world at large. Dr No's brain is so complicated, I doubt that the one beeping neurone at GMC Towers would be able to understand what he has written. I shouldn't really mock the afflicted at our dark towers but I can't resist on occasion.

On the other side of the medical pond - ie General Practice, rebellion has set in. I think more rebellion will commence and hopefully the BMA will be one brick standing on its own in Tavistock Square. I am awaiting the day when its leather sofas will be auctioned on e-bay. It is time a new competitive trade union was created, and one that reflected the ideals of doctors everywhere. The BMJ is becoming tiresome and yes, we know they like to imitate us trendy bloggers but they have to face facts - they ain't got the same rebellious streak in them to be a true blogging guru. Helen Bright called them imitations the other day. Richard Smith tries to be cool but lets face it Richard has never been cool. Firstly, he needs a hair cut then he needs some hair dye and after that he needs to start writing like he doesn't care about the medical establishment. Then Richard belongs to his clique - a closet rebel who really likes to click champagne glasses with those who are of the view they make a difference but don't really :). The BMJ exists to prevent rebellion, to control the medical population into a steady state.

I was wondering if the BMJ had anything to say these days and if it folded tomorrow, would it be missed? Well, perhaps the Careers Supplement and Jobs section may get missed but in these ecofriendly days, is there really any point to printing the journal?

Reading

Reading is a basic skill

Reading is a basic skill. We all have to do it if we want to get anywhere. The problem with many people in the higher echelons of power is that they don't read.

Darzi recently wrote a piece in his beloved Washington Post. I tested the newspaper out and commented. It is interesting how a whistleblower gets automatically dissected mostly by UK posters. It doesn't actually matter to me but it does amuse me to see how many people simply jump on a bandwagon as opposed using their reading skills.

Even more embarrassing is that the specific UK poster is unable to read, referred to me as a "Nurse". This specific person then decided to count the number of articles on NHS Exposed and promptly got it wrong :). James Landon will be amused about it. Not only was this UK poster unable to read but they were unable to count.

So, being mean and critical is one thing - not being able to read or count is just an embarrassment to the UK.

Well, the inability to read or count appears to be endemic in most lawyers representing the General Medical Council so we must assume that it is an ongoing trait :). I just love this " let's attack the whistleblower, attack her persona, her career and distract the masses from the real issue - how many people died?"At least, if people go on the attack, you expect them to count and to read. It is so tiresome dealing with those who really are so short sighted.

They cannot be bothered to -read, join up the dotted ideas and then come to a conclusion. My God, that sounds like the vast majority of medical defense lawyers :).

American Werewolf in London

The Mirror has finally found itself an American. Labour's Spin machine The Mirror once commissioned a piece by me called The Right to Life. It was all about Labour's failings in elderly care. Having paid me for it, the Mirror decided to shelve it. The reason given to me was that it wasn't the right time for negative publicity. That was back in the year 2000. It is now 2009. In the 9 years, they have not found time to feature Right to Life. I suspect they won't want to feature it now as they are in full blown Labour spin. Labour health policy is being attacked by the Republicans.

The Mirror on this occasion has bagged an ENT Consultant. Lets face it, ENT consultants are not at the cut and thrust of real emergency care ie General Medicine or General Surgery. Anyway, if we look at the ENT compensation figures, they are rather high :).

The Mirror then points out how great the United Kingdom is at saving lives. Well, we should try a bit more accuracy there and discover how many patients are left to die. Take this Nigerian who was left to die by the Papworth NHS Trust - a place of clinical "excellence" or so we are led to believe.

The Mirror likes to spin, the irony is that they only found a handfull of people willing to support the status of the current NHS. Anyway, the death rate one of the highest in Europe, the government is in denial and now we observe the government spin machine protecting their reputation.

The truth is, the Labour government has destroyed the NHS. It is time they faced their critics with proper responses as opposed to spin. In my view, they should use Ward 87 as their flagship of excellence in patient deaths. They should tell the Americans how the government concealed the true extent of deaths on that Ward.

Indian Independence Day. A Tryst With Destiny

It is 15th August 2009 and Indian Independence Day. It is also a day of respect for all our elders who fought during that time to free India from the oppressiveness of British Rule. Many lives were lost but a few brave men fought to do what many felt was impossible - to have a free country and the self respect that goes with it. Gandhi showed us that anything is possible without the trappings of money, worldly goods or everything that society considers important. I for one am always proud to have originated from a country that taught us all never to falter at times of oppression and never to compromise on anything no matter what the cost. I have read a great deal about Gandhi, S C Bose and the leaders who achieved Independence. I believe my only regret is that I was not born in India nor have I lived there for a considerable length of time. Hopefully, times will change in the future and I will return to India and never look back.

This is the text of the speech by Nehru, the First Prime Minister of India.

Long years ago we made a tryst with destiny, and now the time comes when we shall redeem our pledge, not wholly or in full measure, but very substantially. At the stroke of the midnight hour, when the world sleeps, India will awake to life and freedom. A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new, when an age ends, and when the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance. It is fitting that at this solemn moment we take the pledge of dedication to the service of India and her people and to the still larger cause of humanity.

At the dawn of history India started on her unending quest, and trackless centuries are filled with her striving and the grandeur of her success and her failures. Through good and ill fortune alike she has never lost sight of that quest or forgotten the ideals which gave her strength. We end today a period of ill fortune and India discovers herself again. The achievement we celebrate today is but a step, an opening of opportunity, to the greater triumphs and achievements that await us. Are we brave enough and wise enough to grasp this opportunity and accept the challenge of the future?

Freedom and power bring responsibility. The responsibility rests upon this Assembly, a sovereign body representing the sovereign people of India. Before the birth of freedom we have endured all the pains of labour and our hearts are heavy with the memory of this sorrow. Some of those pains continue even now. Nevertheless, the past is over and it is the future that beckons to us now.

That future is not one of ease or resting but of incessant striving so that we may fulfil the pledges we have so often taken and the one we shall take today. The service of India means the service of the millions who suffer. It means the ending of poverty and ignorance and disease and inequality of opportunity. The ambition of the greatest man of our generation has been to wipe every tear from every eye. That may be beyond us, but as long as there are tears and suffering, so long our work will not be over.

And so we have to labour and to work, and work hard, to give reality to our dreams. Those dreams are for India, but they are also for the world, for all the nations and peoples are too closely knit together today for any one of them to imagine that it can live apart Peace has been said to be indivisible; so is freedom, so is prosperity now, and so also is disaster in this One World that can no longer be split into isolated fragments.

To the people of India, whose representatives we are, we make an appeal to join us with faith and confidence in this great adventure. This is no time for petty and destructive criticism, no time for ill-will or blaming others. We have to build the noble mansion of free India where all her children may dwell.

The appointed day has come-the day appointed by destiny-and India stands forth again, after long slumber and struggle, awake, vital, free and independent. The past clings on to us still in some measure and we have to do much before we redeem the pledges we have so often taken. Yet the turning-point is past, and history begins anew for us, the history which we shall live and act and others will write about.

It is a fateful moment for us in India, for all Asia and for the world. A new star rises, the star of freedom in the East, a new hope comes into being, a vision long cherished materializes. May the star never set and that hope never be betrayed!

We rejoice in that freedom, even though clouds surround us, and many of our people are sorrowstricken and difficult problems encompass us. But freedom brings responsibilities and burdens and we have to face them in the spirit of a free and disciplined people.

On this day our first thoughts go to the architect of this freedom, the Father of our Nation [Gandhi], who, embodying the old spirit of India, held aloft the torch of freedom and lighted up the darkness that surrounded us. We have often been unworthy followers of his and have strayed from his message, but not only we but succeeding generations will remember this message and bear the imprint in their hearts of this great son of India, magnificent in his faith and strength and courage and humility. We shall never allow that torch of freedom to be blown out, however high the wind or stormy the tempest.

Our next thoughts must be of the unknown volunteers and soldiers of freedom who, without praise or reward, have served India even unto death.

We think also of our brothers and sisters who have been cut off from us by political boundaries and who unhappily cannot share at present in the freedom that has come. They are of us and will remain of us whatever may happen, and we shall be sharers in their good and ill fortune alike.

The future beckons to us. Whither do we go and what shall be our endeavour? To bring freedom and opportunity to the common man, to the peasants and workers of India; to fight and end poverty and ignorance and disease; to build up a prosperous, democratic and progressive nation, and to create social, economic and political institutions which will ensure justice and fullness of life to every man and woman.

We have hard work ahead. There is no resting for any one of us till we redeem our pledge in full, till we make all the people of India what destiny intended them to be. We are citizens of a great country on the verge of bold advance, and we have to live up to that high standard. All of us, to whatever religion we may belong, are equally the children of India with equal rights, privileges and obligations. We cannot encourage communalism or narrow-mindedness, for no nation can be great whose people are narrow in thought or in action.

To the nations and peoples of the world we send greetings and pledge ourselves to cooperate with them in furthering peace, freedom and democracy.

And to India, our much-loved motherland, the ancient, the eternal and the ever-new, we pay our reverent homage and we bind ourselves afresh to her service.

Theft from Liz Miller's Blog

I like reading Liz Millers blog and I rarely have an opportunity to do so. I was pointed to the direction of an interesting open letter. This is what a anonymous commenter told Miller a few days ago. I have shamelessly stolen the quote and cut and pasted it here. Yes, I have no shame! I supppose, Dr Miller will understand that public and transparent theft from her blog is acceptable for a small bribe of a chocolate or two.

Open letter to Niall Dickson.

On 1 January 2010 you will have in your in-tray:

(1) Wakefield, Walker-Smith, Murch's decision
(2) Southall's appeal against erasure
(3) GMC Predeterminations
(4) GMC accused of "show trials"
(5) GMC Revalidation - and how to pay for it !!!
(6) Meltdown in the GMC Investigation Office as we find out how bad their processes really are ?
(7) FOI from Blackstone Chambers and Field Fisher Waterhouse to find out how much they have taken out of the public purse (mis) prosecuting doctors over the past five years.
(8) Mr Justice Collins' retirement remarks about the nature of the GMC and its jurisdiction
(9) LJJ Smith and Thomas "on the warpath" about absence of separation of powers, civil standards, conflicts of interests of GMC Panel chairs, unfair GMC Performance Assessments, etc
(10) The outing of the GMC Press Office for fanning vexatious complaints.

Oh - and the GMC's Top Ten list of doctors on their hit list.

Count Rubin is not going to take the heat - it is all for you - with a change of government loosening a few loyalties.

Isn't chronic diseases at the Kings Fund a little safer ?

I would say the above is the best and most accurate summary I have read. I always find it fascinating that after R v GMC Ex Parte Pal, someone went on the warpath and coincidentally, Finlay Scott left his post, Paul Philip is now slithering as fast as his scaly skin can take him to the General Social Care Council. A new flight steward us to to take over this ship. No doubt Scot CBE and Philip will be leaving their treasure chest of whistleblower skeletons.

Collins J is curiously no longer lead judge of the administrative courts . I have always found the concept of judicial independence fascinating. Actually, I find many issues interesting when it comes to Collins J. He has edited the rules of the Royal College of Psychiatry as well apparently. His most famous moment was to let Chai Patel off on the grounds that it was a rotten indictment.

The GMC had implemented what they GMC term dealing with vexatious complaints. No one actually knows what is deemed " vexatious" at the GMC. It is amazing how the concept matches my pre-action protocols to the GMC even down to the Rules quoted. Of course, this concept flies in the face of the result in the actual case R v General Medical Council Ex Parte Pal which dictates that any complaint, no matter how bizarre that raises a question of misconduct is to be draconianly investigated through the Stream 1 [ dangerous doctors] procedure at the GMC. Now that a number of patient or relative complainants have used this case, the GMC are unhappy about it. I have no idea why the GMC does not practise what it preaches. What is good for the goose is good for the gander?! Or didn't Mark Shaw QC expect this kind of side effect? Ah, I keep forgetting of course that the only intelligent barristers in this world are Robert Englehart and Mark Shaw QC and the rest of us are common and thick. I must remember where my place is in this world as dictated to by these QCs. Only they can read and none of us plebby doctors can.