Before Opting for the MDUCompare 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.
.
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.
.
0 comments:
Post a Comment