Hostile Blue World

I received a very interesting comment on Ward 87. The person known in the blogsphere as Blackdog left the following message :-

"I, like you, Dr Pal was a 'whistleblower' way back in the 70's again in the 80's and once more last year. The context was somewhat less critical than yours but in some ways similar; the 'messenger' invariably gets shot! Trouble is you can't stop doing it when your integrity says something is so wrong. I lost a career and a lot of people I thought were my friends became strangers and worse; some became enemies. It is lonely and sometimes extremely depressing. If I had been less critical, more prepared to compromise my sense of righteous indignation I would have been richer and more well placed to stand the outrageous fortune that presents to someone close to retirement. But I would likely have been less of person than I am now. I know who I am and I cannot change and you come across as someone with that burning need to battle injustice wherever you see it without regard for yourself. Keep doing it, you are a shining light to me and many others in a dark and often hostile world. I often find that reading your words is the thing that urges me onwards, however difficult the terrain of life becomes. Accept my heartfelt thanks and no doubt those of many others that you are what you are"

I think this is probably the nicest and most valuable thing anyone has ever said to me. So whoever you are Blackdog - thankyou. I am honoured by the comment because it is from a person of experience and honour. There are a few prized comments recorded with me. The priceless value comes from the quality of the person making such a comment.

Most people spend their lives being someone else. They attempt to create a false sense of security by being sheep followers. I currently spent my time being myself. I think there is less effort needed in being who you are.

On occasion, I think the medical world is static. There is always a way to behave, a way to be politically correct, a way to good public relations, a way to intellectually debate issues - but very little in the way of individualism. Throughout my time in medicine, I was always asked to be someone else. I have defied that and rebelled against it. Organisations like the GMC have tried their best to rip my individualism, to make me into a clone- in line with them. As they can observe, in time they will start to accept me for who I am. Yes, I have demanded to be accepted for my intemperate style of writing - because that is me, for my sense of humour, - because that is me, and for the fact I am a whistleblower - because that is me as well. So, my skirmish with the GMC, is all about their failure to force me to conform to a fictional image of what they perceive to be a doctor.

The regulatory bodies and various medical authorities support the cloning of people, they buy the same car, they go to the same parties, they have the same number of children but few know the purpose of their existence on earth. Because few people stand for what they believe in, those who do are essentially ostracized. This is a natural reaction of humans to those who are a little " different". I have compared it to playground bullying. It becomes much like fox hunting. Irrational attacks for the sake of preserving their vision of society.

I have always found that those who don't have the courage to be themselves often are quick to criticize others who do have the courage to be who they are. There is also a certain fear about associating with them or accepting them. People like to be accepted. They like to be liked. They like to be popular. They spend their lives trying to achieve those things and in doing so lose themselves in the vacuum we deem society. Few would risk associating with an untouchable for fear of losing their place in " society".

There is a caste system in India called the Untouchables. They clean the latrines. I often compare myself to the Latrine cleaners - because we both try and clean the dirt because it is our job to do so. There is a certain honesty in leading simple lives, earning simple money and never compromising with your integrity or selling yourself out to society. I discovered this when I was at the height of the medical profession, mingling with important people.

The more educated people are, the more corrupt they become. This isn't the rule but it is a trait common in many people. It is as if education blurs the line between a truth and a lie. If we think about it, those who are educated and rich have the most to lose - and this buys their silence.

Many people I have met in life have made compromises in exchange for the decadent self congratulatory lives they lead. I have spent hours in a court room looking at Mark Shaw QC, not for his dashing good looks but I observed the destruction of a man's integrity. Shaw fascinates me on a different level. To me, he exemplifies everything I dislike in mankind. I often wonder what he was like before the decadence of society affected him.

I often wonder what kind of man would sell himself to a profession and desert all he once believed in. Money is a great seducer to many people. Shaw has a job to do much like the Nazi's had a job to do. Shaw shoots doctors in court by his arguments. The Nazi's shot Jewish people. Death has different definitions. Death can be an absence of life, death can be an absence of a life. Many people die at various times during their lifespans. Many doctors die in court. Shaw is like many faceless people we all meet. I am sure Charles Dickens would describe him much more eloquently than me. Shaw is a shell of himself, he functions for money. Perhaps one day, I hope he will find his purpose in life. An advocate with such talents should be saving people not assassinating them. I have an enormous about of sympathy for Mr Shaw.

So having aimed and reached the heady heights of educated people, I discovered that none of them had the values I did and still do. There is nothing magical in those values, it doesn't make me a better person. It does though mean, I realised that the hard work required to reach those heady heights was not worth it. I am positive I would have been far happier being a latrine cleaner, earning an honorable living in downtown Calcutta. There is a certain honour about an honest living.

There is a certain charm to simple principles and the simpler life. It also provides us all with the kind of happiness that can never be found by those who chase the decadent attractions of modern society. Those who survive well will have learned the importance of a simple life in an increasingly hostile world.

Cornelius Katona. Psychiatrist at a Glance

Professor Katona is the grandee of UK's psychiatry profession. Katona is the author of the excellent textbook Psychiatry at a Glance. It is about the best work he has ever done. Psychiatry at a Glance was constructed and vetted by our year at UCL Medical School. It is to be recommended for all doctors. In person, Katona is a quietly spoken, a distinctly crumply man who is immensely intelligent. The fact he has no dress sense is irrelevant because he is Professor Katona. I spent a number of weeks on a firm with Cornelius Katona. At the end of it, I left with rave reviews. I was asked to do Psychiatry.

As I pointed out to him recently - as medical students we often believe that our superiors are kind, genuine and even human to a certain extent. I did not expect the Picture of Dorian Gray I witnessed years later. The profession has two faces. The public face and the private face. The public face is cosmetically uplifted because the real face cannot stand the test of public scrutiny.

Katona works in psychiatry and is supposedly part of the caring profession. You would think he would care about his junior doctors. Katona became the silent man as soon as he found out about Pal v GMC 2004. So from being fairly amenable at medical school, he decided not to respond to my email. This was his solution to the predicament I found myself in. This is not an unusual response from those who perceive that their involvement with a taboo subject will not be advantageous for them.

Katona used to be Dean of the Royal College of Psychiatry. This was during the time, they allowed Sheila Mann to "discreetly enquire" into the style of my writings. I believe now as I have always done that this behaviour by Dr Mann was unacceptable. It remains unforgivable in light of the 2001 findings into Ward 87 which upheld all my concerns. The Royal College of Psychiatry to date fails to recommend appropriate policies to the GMC to prevent such violations from happening in the future. The impression from the Royal College is that I am supposed to accept this kind of abuse of power that infiltrated and violated my privacy and effectively contructively dismissed me from the NHS. I don't accept it and I never will. My view is that litigation never achieves accountability but the future remembers the past by the footprints on the internet.

Of late, Katona can be seen escalating the care homes litigation with his association with Yvonne Hossack. To him, supporting that is probably more financially beneficial than observing the "totalitarian behaviour" of the GMC.

I had an amusing conversation with Katona recently. At the time, his memory could not recall who I really was. He asked me what sparked my interest in the Care Homes Litigation. I told him that the media sparked my interest. I questioned a number of experts have been advertising the Castle study as showing that a "move" can be a direct cause of death. Katona can be found being "misquoted" [ or so he tells me] in the Birmingham Mail.

Katona failed to respond to the question about the direct causation of death. He tip toed around the question to his default response. He also failed to tell me how he was misquoted. Anyhow, we have to assume that David Jolley and Professor Katona know what they are doing by twisting the art of science to fit the clinical cases in front of them. Afterall, isn't that what experts do? Katona is a master of fitting words together to achieve his intentions. That is because he is intelligent and unaccountable. He is Professor Katona afterall.

I explained that I was disturbed that despite a shortage of psychiatrists, the Royal College of Psychiatrists were happy to approve those with a criminal record into their fold. The Royal College are interesting because they were on the web looking up Dr Rita Pal repeatedly and obsessively [ according to our logs]. Perhaps if they paid a little more attention to GMC number [5206241] and his criminal records in various courts, they would have caught the right doctor. The warning on his record states as follows [ which I found amusing]

"2. You must refrain from criminal activity which risks bringing the profession into disrepute".

Anyhow, Professor Dinesh Bhugra's paw prints are over the support of this man.

Even now, the Royal College fail to be concerned about the level of deception by the above doctor with a criminal record.

If I brought the above to the attention of Prof Katona, he would simply ignore me. Indeed, he did this when I alluded to the above. I suppose, he will say I am unjustifiably criticizing their fellow wonderboy whom they have supported since 2003. It is of course a little embarrassing for the Royal College to have approved this man for 1 year towards MRCPsych 1 in a job that the doctor had never worked in :).

I suspect his colleagues would rather support and uplift the career of a man with a dubious record rather than assist those who have done nothing but are perhaps a little too brash for their polite world view. I refer of course to Dr Helen Bright, Dr India and of course myself. Dr Helen Bright, a capable psychiatrist was essentially mobbed by her colleagues in psychiatry. Reports were written without examination of her. I have no idea how assessments are done on doctors who aren't mentally ill. Nevertheless, it happened. Dr India continues to fight against assessments by GMC assessors who say his emails criticizing the GMC's processes is evidence of a personality disorder. The Royal College who work in common purpose with the GMC in these human rights violations continue to turn a blind eye to these Stalinist actions. Professor Katona certainly turns a blind eye. No attention is paid to the high death rate of doctors at the GMC's health panels. Doctors kill themselves, no one cares. Essentially, those are the reports in the media. Shall we mention Debra Shepherd? She is a consultant psychiatrist who was driven to suicide. I wonder how much support the Royal College offered her?

While the Royal College laments about the shortage of Psychiatrists, there are 3 psychiatrists constructively dismissed from the NHS. This is the Royal College's response to why there is a shortage of psychiatrists. They appear to intellectualize these issues but in reality the College fails to support their juniors. I suppose they are more likely to support you if you conform to the dry manner in which they conduct themselves in. All juniors just has to read the British Journal of Psychiatry. They brought back the stalinist diagnosis of Querulous Paranoia.

Anyhow, we shall leave all the "experts" in care home litigation to cause more havoc with the councils in the UK so they can show us how much integrity they have. I cannot for one minute believe that professors who care nothing of their junior doctors would care about the elderly or the vulnerable. Expert fees on legal aid are fairly good these days. Money is a good motivator.

The above shows my view of Professor Katona whom I held in high esteem in the mid 1990s. He was the reason I opted to work in psychiatry. I now find him to be a man who is supportive of the establishment, who fails to respond to emails because of his inability to face controversiality.

I shouldn't challenge the status quo and remind the old men of psychiatry that they have now moved far from the land of integrity, honour and the truth. Prof Katona did not respond to my assistance for help in 2004-2005, he will not respond now. The reason for this is because he wishes to remain in his own safe haven, in a world that he understands. This is the autoresponse to show that in 2004 Prof Katona did indeed receive the email but never responded. So it appears that he wasn't concerned that a High Court judge referred to the conduct of a Royal College member to be that of a totalitarian regime.

----- Original Message -----

From: "C.Katona" <C.Katona@kent.ac.uk>

To: "Dr Rita Pal" <rita1.pal_poet-ess@tiscali.co.uk>

Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 2:24 PM

Subject: Automatic email response

It is safer for him to be with Yvonne Hossack who "buys" expert opinions . It is not safe for him to look into the violations of human rights committed by his colleagues at the General Medical Council. So I have one thing to say to Cornelius - yes, I beat the GMC in 2004 at the hearing without him or any of his colleagues who shut the door in my face repeatedly. This is the "caring profession". Their greatest regret is that I won the first hearing against the GMC and still remain one of the only junior doctors to do it. The judge referred to the GMC as a Totalitarian Regime, the Royal College of Psychiatry took no action. They took no action because none of them are man enough to stand by the basic principles of justice. Had the Royal College intervened, there would never have been any requirement for litigation. Then some of us have to create justice - where there is none.

This shows you that all is never what it appears to be at medical school.Perhaps Katona will be remembered for his expert witness reports for Yvonne Hossack, perhaps he will be remembered for his lack of responses to whistleblowers, perhaps he will simply be remembered for the fact that despite being a Professor of Psychiatry and being an expert in human behaviour, he failed to do anything remotely human.

He should though be remembered for his excellent work for Psychiatry At Glance because after that, it all appears to have gone downhill.

Those wishing to go into Psychiatry should consider the true aspects of the Royal College before opting to choose a career in psychiatry. The top of the profession are arrogant and controlling and the rest of the profession are supine.

Dedicated to Professor Katona

Spontaneous Combustion

The most important aspect of post whistleblowing effects is the feeling of spontaneous combustion. Life always remains on fire. Progress is always limited in a way because even though there are successes in some aspects of your life, the poor treatment endured during whistleblowing haunts you. It haunts every whistleblower.

My failure to accept the lack of accountability is quite obvious. I suspect that is the reason I set out to hold people accountable in a small way. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. I find most MPs ineffective, I find authorities obstructive, I find people insensitive to the requirements of whistleblowers.

I find it unacceptable that my life was turned upside down due to the failure of various authorities to perform their function. Their failures as people and as a collective organisation where then blamed on me.

Various comments have been floated around about me, one of them is the word " tenacious". It is very easy for the failing system to blame the character of their whistleblower. The next sentence I hear is this " What do you want now, after 10 years". Well, how about some accountability in England?

Simply because a lot of fat cats in authority are unable to apply their minds to the serious failures in the UK, does not mean I should be a victim. Yes, I refuse to be a victim. I refuse to get depressed and I refuse to be like every other whistleblower in the UK. To the annoyance and the embarrassment of the Department of Health, I haven't gone away either. I don't believe there is a any reason I should accept the victim mould I am supposed to be in.My survival instincts are too good for that.

I have to thank the General Medical Council for toughening me up. My years of skirmishes with them have taught me how to approach matters in a tactical way. I have changed from the year 2000 when I was a very young frightened junior doctor with little knowledge of how anything worked. I still hold onto the values I did then. I think the GMC teaches you to be a survivor because if you can survive their tactics, you can survive anything. I have to admit that in the year 2002, I had discovered how much the GMC had kicked me.

I suspect if you get kicked enough, you stand up and kick back and gradually the quality of kicking gets better. To a certain extent, I compete with the intellect of the GMC. Beating them in various arguments or losing is a learning point for me. The GMC will deny many things but they are aware that they have made small changes to the system following their contact with me. The organisation has not improved to a great extent yet but I always live in the hope that it will be work for patients and doctors alike. Hope is such an innocent concept for all of us. I fear deserting it because I will then have to accept the status quo and I am not willing to do that. I am not willing to accept that organisations cannot change for the better.

Perhaps even after all this time, I fail to accept that large numbers of people can die on a ward and no one understands the implications such a failure to record death rates. It is such a simple concept yet recording death rate on a ward to monitor the quality of clinical care is not something understood by any authority. Perhaps, there is a failure to understand this concept properly. Afterall, if it was understood, they would find out how many people the system kills in the UK. Perhaps that would not be the done thing.

I have learned about the system. I have learned about the Common Purpose methodology used to subvert important issues. I have learned to hone my skills to win most arguments. I have learned many things and often the amount of work needed to deal with whistleblowing issues makes you feel you may spontaneously combust anytime. It hasn't happened to me yet and it probably won't. Nevertheless, despite the obstructive nature of authorities, organisations, Members of Parliament and the House of Lords, I don't believe whistleblower should ever give up. At least, I never have.

My inspiration often comes from those who have fought longer and harder battles than me. Arpad Toth and Will Powell continue to teach me many things about the future, the past, of accountability and survival. They have also taught me that the truth is worth fighting for because to desert it would mean that I was indeed a failure. Perhaps my fear is that I will accept the status quo and not fight for all the principles that are important in life.

The concept of "Hope" is a great thing. It keeps all of us moving forward on a journey to protect the truth and the innocent belief that the world can and should be a better place. Children are often better protectors of the truth than adults. Most adults spend a great proportion of their time maintaining their place in society and embellishing the truth. Those who climb up the greasy pole to the heady heights of position and power often desert the idea of protecting the truth in favour of having a position to maintain.

Having approached and knocked on every door in the NHS, you become aware that few people accept whistleblowing with open arms. Most will never accept it because whistleblowing reminds them of an element of truth in their cosmetic world.

Management Guidance

Back on the Trough Helpdesk, recently I have been researching the Guidance governing NHS Managers. The inspiration comes from Dr Steve Choong, Trust dictator and hapless Medical Director of Worcestershire Mental Health Trust. The fact is that Dr Steve Choong isn't cut out to be a manager. Sadly, the Trust has never faced up to this fact. During my time at Worcesterwitz, everyone was unhappy with the manner in which Choong and Monteiro ruled the land.

Now, the GMC Management Guidance is territory to be tested. New territory is always interesting. Everyone should download a copy of the documents below so that they can look at their Medical Directors and question them. Most Medical Directors are not trained in management. Most are of the view that they remain unaccountable. I believe that is Dr Steve Choong's view. I am surprised that the MPS or MDU have not advised him not to put his foot in it repeatedly.

The Guidance is as follows.

1. NHS Code of Conduct For Managers
2. BMA Guidance - Medical Director's Role.
3. Management for Doctors. GMC Guidance.

As everyone is aware, managers hardly ever follow the guidance. I am not sure Dr Choong has read the guidance governing his job. Nevertheless, if people do lie by proxy then accountability either happens through the the GMC or through the internet. Personally, I prefer historic material on the internet.

Is the MMC and EWTD hiking patient death rate?

So Imperial College study wishes to blame junior doctors for the hike in death rates. Now that's very interesting because now that they have established that, we can now blame all the consultants and managers. After all, the delegation rule applies as does the case law on vicarious liability. The consultants and managers would be responsible for anything done by their subordinates. The line of accountability goes right up to good old Liam Donaldson.

Paul Aylin who conducted the research also gave evidence at the Shipman Inquiry. Here is his CV. Nice to know he writes papers with Lord Darzi as well.

Amazing how no one blames the systems set up in the NHS. No one even blames the management but everyone is quick to blame those who can't defend themselves - junior doctors. Sure, and managers remain blameless. .

See Remedy UK for more on these issues. They mention detailed issues concerning the MMC and European Working Time Directive. On each of these campaigns, Remedy UK warned that patients would be put at risk. Now the findings from the above study is that patients are being placed at risk.

The finger should be pointed at the policies in place and the working environment of those junior doctors as opposed to the junior doctors themselves. There is a lack of continuity of care brought on by the implementation of these new systems. The government wants to be blameless.

Indeed, we ought to ask Aylin whether these policies may have had an impact on his figures. Certainly previous studies done within the old system - pre MMC did not come any definitive correlation. Remedy UK should consider whether the MMC and the EWTD do have an impact on patient safety. I believe this study may show that the current Department of Health policies are placing patients at risk. If that is so, they can directly correlate Liam Donaldson's actions in the MMC and EWTD to this mysterious hike in mortality.

It might be interesting to calculate pre MMC and post MMC patient mortality figures! A review of the papers may be the key for Remedy UK in establishing patient risk during their forthcoming judicial review with the General Medical Council. I am sure the boffins at Remedy UK can calculate the relevant figures :)

Over to you boys!

Wicked Tales From Worcesterwitz Towers. Dr Choong and Dr Monteiro

Lying By Proxy.
Yes, we know how silly they look

Continuing from previous tales of Worcesterwitz Towers.

Back in 2007, Dr Choong was a GMC Panelist and a PLAB examiner. He is now chair of the Royal College of Psychiatrists section on "Management Special Interest Group". I find it amazing that he is chairing that while being investigated for dishonesty at the General Medical Council. Perhaps he is going to be setting an example to the rest of the psychiatrists who are there. Perhaps his next lesson should be "How to Lie By Proxy". How to delegate responsibility then tell the GMC " It ain't me gov".

Since the GMC investigation pounced on him, Dr Choong is no longer PLAB Examiner or GMC Panellist. The GMC Panelist position was relinquished in August 2009, around the time of the GMC investigation.

In the meantime, Dr Will Monteiro continues his masquerade of innocence. Once Clinical Lead of Worcestershire Mental Health Trust. He no longer holds that position.

Steve Choong. Hey Big Spender

Continuing the tales from the Crypt of Worcesterwitz, I noticed that Steve's Expenses are the highest in the Directors Expenses sheet. The document is here.

We would think that Steve's expenses would be in the middle range. It turns out that while he is spending £5,183.04, the Chief Executive spends 2,078.60 and the Chairman 1,977.16.

So why does Steve spend so much?

McJobbyGate. Catching Plaice

I felt I ought to mention Dr Scot Junior. Of course, despite all the work done for Dr Scot Junior, the ungrateful little toad has not even emailed me. That is what you get for strategically saving someone's skin.

The update on the Professor Plaice and Hemlockgate is that the complaints are still continuing at GMC Towers and have not been thrown out. Another case of victimisation by Plaice has been unearthed.

Dr B Gets an 18 Month Suspension

GMC IOP Hit Man
Medical Career Assasinaton in Action

A few weeks ago, I followed the adventures of Dr A and Dr B who were both facing the GMC Interim Order Panel. Dr A's case is currently postponed until next year. Dr B's case took place. I covered it on NHS Behind the Headlines.

Dr B was presented with an 18 month suspension plus recommendation for Anger Management by the an angry Interim Order Panel at the GMC.

Well, they wanted to teach him a lesson so they did. A few years ago, the General Medical Council told Dr B not to criticise them. This I believe is somewhere in the GMC transcripts.

Anyhow, just to say these these issues are only reported online because I am fully aware of the medical profession and their tendency to ignore these issues and sleep. The problem with ignoring these issues is the fact that these Interim Order Panels will catch up on everyone. I believe the current statistics are about 4-5 doctors daily.

Peter Lynn of the GMC was involved in this case as well as the case of Dr Joel Branch. Both are suspended on the Interim Order Panel list. Each have no patient issues.

The General Medical Council have effectively assassinated two junior doctors careers without a care in the world. They do like to throw their weight around.

Dr B will hopefully fight on. Dr B is a brave man to have fought against this oppressive behavior for some years now. I believe this is the fourth year and Dr B is still going strong. Hopefully, this can be overturned on appeal.

Yvonne Hossack and the Two Baggy Old Psychiatrists

Peter's Mobbing Group

I have resisted writing about Yvonne for sometime now. My dealings with her were brief really. I don't think she is the worst lawyer in the world but then she isn't the best. A few years ago, I regretted recommending her to Dr Giri Katti. Giri was never dishonest, he had simply been fitted up by his Trust. It was probably one of the biggest injustices the General Medical Council has ever had. Yvonne was supposed to represent at the appeal but never did. Ever since this episode, I try not to recommend lawyers at all. Giri was left all alone to fight his appeal. He should have won. Had he been represented, he would have won. I don't think I have forgiven Yvonne for this issue but then again I never mentioned it to anyone until now.

The other person represented briefly by Yvonne was Lowick One. He wasn't impressed with her either. So overall, there we have it. She is now at the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal fighting for her registration. Well, there are worse lawyers than her. I don't quite like the manner in which she propagates junk science. The Daily Mail states

"Yvonne Hossack, 53, saved at least 80 care homes by representing their powerless residents. She successfully argued the effects on those being moved are so traumatic that they can prove fatal"

Well, I haven't seen any research that shows an increase in mortality once a person moves residential or care homes. No doubt it was another one of those issues invented by Professor David Jolley who peddles his own brand of psychiatry. The background of the care homes scandal can be seen here. For a lawyer, legal aid can be a big money maker and every lawyer appreciates an opportunity. Every lawyer is an opportunist.

The referral to the General Medical Council arose after Ms Hossack had a disagreement with the grand old man of Psychiatry Peter Jefferys. Interestingly, rumour has it that Peter Jefferys was originally an expert for Ms Hossack then decided to fight for the other side. Isn't that a conflict of interest Peter?

Hossack then referred Jefferys to the General Medical Council. Did Yvonne really think that the GMC would take up a complaint against one of their grand old men? Predictably, the GMC threw her complaint out. Hossack on the other hand left herself open to an attack by Pete. Peter Jefferys began to act like a grumpy old bat and decided to refer Yvonne to her own regulatory body [the SRA]. And there we are - Hossack is the girl caught between two middle aged baggy ratty old shrinks. It isn't a good place to be. From the way I look at things, there are sexier men in the world and lets face it, there is nothing sexy about Bad Boy Jefferys. These shrinks haven't grown up at all since their days at play school. Freud would have a thing or two to say about them both.

It should be noted that Peter Jefferys was also instrumental in referring Helen Bright to the General Medical Council. He was also responsible for ruining her career. The question is, with this kind of behaviour, can anyone trust Peter as a appraiser for revalidation?

Back to Yvonne, well she has done a admirable job of defending herself. I am sure if she had made enough effort for Giri Katti, he would have been a free man as well. The fact is Yvonne never cared what happened to Katti. What did happen to Katti? Does anyone care about this. Yvonne though cares very much for herself.

She got Alan Johnson out of his crypt to support her. She rallied the media with her martyr image. Martyr images are good because the media always likes a good hero story. Yvonne is no hero but we can all pretend she is. She needs to win because she is caught in a trap now. The media representation is really a tactical method of winning. I am not sure what the Solicitor Disciplinary Tribunal thinks about this but I doubt Antony Townsend will be phased at all.

An interesting twist to the tale and the link between all these interesting stories is Antony Townsend. Antony is a creepy little ex General Medical Council minion. Many years ago, I was told that Antony possessed a list of " difficult doctors" who were essentially "fitted up". It took me a while to discover who Antony Townsend was and of course, I note that he is indeed Chief Executive of the SRA. His days at the General Medical Council are left far behind but it may explain why no complaint against General Medical Council solicitors are ever taken up by the SRA. The prosecution of the Yvonne Hossack may make sense now - it becomes a neat triangle between Jefferys, the GMC and the SRA. It only takes a inflated innocent allegation to be caught in the net created by Antony Townsend. He was rumoured to have been responsible for the events in 2000 related to me and my whistleblowing on Ward 87. The General Medical Council are yet to respond to my questions. So we all wonder what Antony Townsend did at the General Medical Council in the name of the medical profession.

In conclusion, Yvonne does not need to have her registration affected. She has failed to monitor what was being done to her. It appears that she was so busy that she simply got caught by the net set out to trap her. A challenge should have been mounted much earlier. Now the SRA or the establishment has her and they will do what they need to do with her. The kind of net she is involved in will eventually cripple her by destroying her reputation and ultimately destroying her livelihood.

Peter Jefferys and David Jolley in the meantime will continue their shot of Baileys while sitting on their leather chairs and guffawing away about how clever they all are. Power is a wonderful thing for psychiatrists, especially for them. Control is an even better weapon for both of them. In the end though, we know them to be boys who never grew up to be men. Just that their playgrounds got bigger and their toys became a little more complex. As a casual observer, we look at them from the outside and wonder why one of them prays to God. Their reports are just as evidence based as the existence of God :).

The Power of Shipman

Whipped off Henry North

As Henry points out, Harold Shipman is the reason we are all surrounded by the powers of the General Medical Council. Well, I am technically free from the old bags at Hallam Street but I often continue to clear my name. Yes, it is true, in 2004, I was compared to Harold Shipman by the creepy shortarse barrister hired by the General Medical Council. She compared the heinous crime of writing a letter with one typo to killing more than 100 people. Excellent Jane Collier of Blackstones, have yourself a tufti badge for that.

Of course, there was a minor difference - Shipman had killed hundreds and I hadn't killed anyone. What I had done was write anti GMC propaganda. Of course, that is a worse crime than being a serial killer.

I hold the record for being investigated and cleared more times than a average doctor aged 37 - and that too on my website writings only. I hold the UK medical record for being investigated for 2 years on the strength of one typographical error. I also hold the UK record for being investigated for defamation. Having put me through a investigation for six months, the GMC told the world in writing that it didn't deal with defamation. Lastly, the GMC investigated a link on a website and the fact I was a psychiatrist. Despite being an affiliate member of the Royal College of Psychiatrists which required 3 years experience as a Psychiatrist, apparently I am the only doctor in the UK who could not use the title Psychiatrist. 2100 junior doctors in the UK apparently could use the title Psychiatrist according to the Department of Health statistics. Having been rumbled, the GMC dropped the investigation before the Rule 7 charge sheet. Having lost me my job, the GMC decided that I could finally call myself a Psychiatrist. Amazing! Times got a bit embarrassing for the GMC when their own panelist was found to be a referee of mine who bestowed the title of Psychiatrist upon me. Amazing!

And the GMC wonder why I may just be a little pissed off with them. Gosh I wonder why! Indeed, they deserve every line of anti GMC propaganda penned by me.

Tomorrow, I shall place the names of the current GMC case examiners up online for many doctors to download.

Document Extraction

Be Daring.

Disclosure from various places while you are up shit creek without a paddle is an interesting escapade. The important thing to remember is that no lawyer is going to bother about harvesting evidence. That is my experience anyway. Fishing is your job.

I was going to discuss Section 10 of the Data Protection Act but have decided to revert back to ways of obtaining disclosure from the opposition. I felt we needed a middle chapter before discussing correction of data. We have already discussed the Data Protection Act, now its time to discuss some case law.

The General Medical Council has a habit of non disclosure. You have to request the material you require. It is important to understand that all the GMC does is recorded on a computer system called Siebel. Alarms on doctors files are also recorded on their systems.

"The GMC is currently implementing the most comprehensive and wide-ranging reform of medical regulation since it was established in 1858, and Siebel Public Sector is playing a key role in that process,” said Dave Anson, Head of Information Systems, General Medical Council. “The GMC intends to use Siebel Public Sector as its primary case management system, consolidating data concerning doctors, complaints, investigations, hearings, and medical school audits across multiple data sources and automating aspects of case workflow. This will provide the GMC with the capability to realize its vision and ambition in regulating doctors and ensuring good medical practice.”

The Data Protection Act can be used to access data held on computer. The other case law that some of us have found useful is Henshall. Henshall revolved around the non disclosure of documents by the GMC. Quoted from the case :-

Lord Denning MR's solution in R v Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Norwich City Council [1982] QB 808, at 842G, that the common law should fill the lacuna, and to Sedley LJ's articulation in R v Camden LBC ex p Paddock CO/2817/92 at page 16 of the principle adumbrated a long time before by Lord Loreburn LC in Board of Education v Rice [1911] AC 179, at 182. “... that a decision-making body should not see relevant material without giving those affected a chance to comment on it and, if they wish, to controvert it, is fundamental to the principle of law (which governs public administration as much as it does adjudication) that to act in good faith and listen fairly to both sides is 'a duty lying upon everyone who decides anything'“

The other case of some use is Norwich Pharmacal. This can sometimes be applied to obtain the case examiner's identities. The General Medical Council often refuses the identities of decision makers. This is of course their idea of transparency. I believe I used a combination of the Data Protection Act, the FOIA and Norwich Pharmacal to obtain the identity of the screener in my 2004 case. The GMC had refused to provide her identity to the court. Indeed, the judge at the time didn't understand why this was kept a secret.

The above should be useful to both Complainant and Respondent. It practice, information harvesting takes a very long time, perhaps years. Ward 87 disclosures for instance has taken about a decade and it still isn't complete.

There is one final issue, the Limitation Act ie ability to litigate runs from the time of disclosure hence I am never in any rush to do anything. All good disclosures come to those who wait in the end. My 2004 case was constructed from data I had obtained from subject access requests to the GMC, my friends subject access request to Halton NHS Trust and my subsequent harvesting of evidence. The lawyers never made any efforts to obtain disclosures. This also applies to the MPS who has never in their entire lives obtained full disclosure of documentation related to Ward 87. They though felt able to provide a duff legal opinion on a fragment of information. I am simply providing an example of defence lawyers in action.

• 
  

Data Protection Act 1998.

Getting Ready to Fight

One of the important failings of medical education is the fact that little or no training is provided on the Data Protection Act 1998. It is an extremely important Act that is very useful for doctors and patients alike. I am going to address this from a medical point of view. The most important website in the universe is the Information Commissioner's website. Every single medical student and doctor should be familiar with it. Every doctors life is spent dealing with data in some form. In this post, I am addressing personal data as applied to doctors.

Firstly, doctors in trouble often fail to grasp the basic fact that they have a legal entitlement to their data. Some feel that the very act of making a subject access request will infuriate the authorities. This isn't often the case and it is better to arm yourself with internal documents rather than be a sitting duck. You can't say " I am struck off, I should have made a subject access request". Very often doctors do for some reason prefer to be sitting ducks and I have no idea why. Perhaps it is because we are all told to keep quiet. Firstly, it is not beyond any doctor to read an Act or policies. It is not beyond doctors to get the evidence to defend themselves. Put it this way, if you don't have your file, you don't have proper line of defense. I have found that making a subject access request to an authority often makes matters a little better. It certainly prevents this kind of " victim, sitting duck effect". I don't think intelligent people like doctors should lower themselves to be victims. The other issue is this, a lack of knowledge makes authorities feel as though they have the upper hand. Part of self preservation is knowing the enemy's hand.

So here are the steps to obtain your personal file from any authority in the land. You are entitled to your employment record from the Trusts, PCTS and the GMC. There is no reason why you should not gain access to it. Defense unions never make subject access requests under the Data Protection Act. You want your file, you have to go and get it. Many of us have gained large amounts of information using these subject access requests. Moreover, it is even possible to make a subject access request to the Medical Defence Union or the MPS etc.

1. Firstly, read the Data Protection Act 1998. This will ensure you are familiar with your rights. You also need to read about your rights at the Information Commissioner.

2. Secondly, draft a letter to the authority. This is called a subject access request. It should go something like this

Dear Sir or Madam

Please send me the information which I am entitled to under the Section 7(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998. This should include all data held electronically and on hard copy.

I would also be grateful for a copy of your policy on the Data Protection Act 1998.

If you need further information from me, or a fee, please let me know as soon as possible.

If you do not normally handle these requests for your organisation, please pass this letter to your Data protection officer or another appropriate official.

Yours faithfully

The above is a variation from the suggested draft by the Information Commissioner.

3. You need to either email or send the request. I tend to do both. It should be remembered that the authority has 40 days to produce the documents. If they do delay, they are in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998. The Information Commissioner will admonish them for it.

4. Once you recieve your bundle of documents, you need to check it. Once you have done that, some documents may be missing. You can either go back to the authority and request the missing data. Some organisations have a review process. If they are reluctant and you have exhausted all avenues with the authority, your line of appeal is to the Information Commissioner. These are the powers of the Information Commissioner.

• conduct assessments to check organisations are complying with the Act;
• serve information notices requiring organisations to provide the Information Commissioner's Office with specified information within a certain time period;
• serve enforcement notices and 'stop now' orders where there has been a breach of the Act, requiring organisations to take (or refrain from taking) specified steps in order to ensure they comply with the law;
• prosecute those who commit criminal offences under the Act;
• conduct audits to assess whether organisations processing of personal data follows good practice; and
• report to Parliament on data protection issues of concern.

5. If you feel your rights have been infringed, then the ICO's Complaints section should be read. The beauty of going through this procedure is that data that is hidden often comes to your post box and if your case is failing, there is always that light at the end of the tunnel. I call this document harvesting.

The above method is something I have used on Ward 87 and North Staffordshire NHS Trust. They were found guilty of breaching the Data Protection Act about 3 times over. I am sure they still have not complied and continue to conceal documents but thats the price of working for the NHS. Fairness and transparency is not part of their makeup.

Tomorrow, I shall talk about Section 10 of the Data Protection Act 1998. This is a section I used to litigate against the GMC. It is though a useful section to redact defamatory comments about you that can be prejudicial to your employment.

The above is the basic guide to the Data Protection Act 1998. The more advance tactical methodology is to make subject access requests in tandem everywhere. For instance, in my case, making a subject access request to West Midlands Deanery yielded the material that was omitted from the documents supplied to me at North Staffordshire NHS Trust. Alternatively, making a subject access request to the Department of Health yielded the conceited remarks made by the Trust that were again omitted. The trick really is to go on a search and to play each organisation against the other. For instance in the recent case between the GMC and Worcestershire Mental Health Trust, the GMC lied through their teeth in court but the document obtained through the subject access request through the Trust showed the lie in bright technicolour.

In your defence, each sentenceyou write has to be evidence based. Your job as a doctor in trouble is to search for the evidence. If you are innocent, there is always the evidence somewhere. Having got all the documents, you then hand them to your lawyer with clear directions and instructions as to what to do with them.

Until tomorrow. Thats probably enough for one Sunday at the Trough Helpdesk :). The only reason we all have to read this boring crap is because the wrong kind of pigs rule the land.

Dr B. Judicial Review Art Attack

When there is no legal superhero to save you,
you need to save yourself

All lawyers or litigants have to develop a pre-action protocol if they wish to challenge an authority by judicial review. The GMC is a quasi judicial body. The ruling that the GMC isn't a court was made by the Court of Appeal when the GMC failed to against Panorama. The case is GMC v BBC. The difference between lay people [ in this case doctors] and lawyers is that lawyers have read the law books and I suspect their training makes them much better at analysing the law. There is no reason a doctor cannot read the relevant documents and come up with a relatively good pre-action.

The first website to look at is the Public Law Project. This website has some excellent leaflets etc on Judicial Reviews. It is worth downloading them, reading them and assessing what must be done. The second website to read is the CPR Rules. These are the Civil Procedure Rules which are online. Every court in the land uses these rules and procedures to conduct their cases. Essentially, first there must be a pre-action protocol or Letter of Claim. The aim of this is to see if the two parties can reconcile their difference. Dr B and I both know that this is usually a waste of time when it comes to the GMC because they never listen to rationality or logic. Indeed, they actually don't care whether they follow the rules or not. Nevertheless, a pre-action protocol must be done. If you need to issue a judicial review in court, these are the CPR rules for that. The Royal Courts of Justice are fairly helpful with respect to procedure and forms. Their website is particularly helpful.

There is of course one problem with litigation, the winning party gets to claim the costs. Of course, there are various cases related to your opponents conduct. If you think that judicial review is all about fairness and proper disclosures, it isn't. Your disclosures must be obtained by subject access requests under the Data Protection Act 1998. In my own case, I had to work 10 steps ahead of my lawyers. On each occasion, I obtained the documentation, they didn't. Let that be a lesson to everyone.

Litigating as a litigant in person is hazardous. Nevertheless some doctors have indeed won their cases. The most famous being Saher Sadek who defeated the MPS. Dr S Vaidya recently defeated Toni Smerdon in a application by the GMC to throw his negligence cases out. The key to good litigation is good paperwork, good folders and some basic knowledge of the law. Personally, I dislike the GMC litigation team because they have never played fair. Often, they will ambush you the night before with large bundles of paperwork. That is against the CPR rules for service. In 2004, I discovered 2 large bundles mid hearing which had not been served. At that point, I stopped the ambush, caused an adjournment of the hearing and went home. The GMC litigation team lack in morals, are incable of being honest and the only reason they are not in prison is because the Attorney General and the judges allows them the freedom to decieve. So when you fight the GMC, have no expectation that there is any fairness. Their book of dirty tricks is alive and well. The same tricks are played again and again. They are

1. Fudging the facts
2. Ambushing the litigant
3. Failing to provide the relevant case law to the court.
4. Decieving the court.
5. Character assasinating the opponent.
6. Arguing two lines of argument on one point in two different cases.

Only litigate if you have to. The above has been written as a simple directive for any doctor wishing to challenge the status quo. No one has to be a lawyer to arm themselves with knowledge and logic. Dr B and I did it on our own. And I hate being arrogant but it is possible with a bit of thought to defeat some of the best lawyers just by playing good tactics. The only good thing about being a Litigant in Person is that lawyers don't ruin your case. You have sole control of your destiny in court.

Related Links.

1. GMC Case Law available on Baiili.
2. Blackstones often summarise the GMC case law. Well, they have to do something for the great unwashed as the GMC pays them millions.
3. The GMC's website has the Medical Act, Rules and Procedures. You should also have in your possession, the GMC's investigation manual that is updated every year. This can be obtained via an FOIA request.

Dr A Snr's Birthday Party

News of Dr A is that his hearing is definitely postponed at the GMC until next February 2010 sometime. That's a number of years Dr A has wasted with the GMC. It's been a bit like being at Guantanamo Bay. I keep telling Dr A to get out of that silly orange suit and start wearing something swish and cool. Dr A called the GMC "incompetent", shook his head and told the world he was going to let his hair down and forget about the stalinist regime for a while.

Anyway, as this week didn't turn out as we all thought, Dr A is going to Parrrrrrteeey. Dr A Senior is having a bash so the video above is dedicated to Daddy Cool Snr :).

So Happy Birthday Papa A. Many happy returns.

Big Thighs. Live Long and Prosper

My fav Reggae Tune

Excellent, the BMJ Press Release early this morning tells me I am going to live a long life and be protected against heart disease. It beats looking at the papers who point out that everything I do is related to an early death. I knew there was some value to my large thighs. Professor Berit L Heitmann is a truly excellent man. He must have spent some time measuring women's thighs to come up with this research. Poor man - leading such a difficult life of a researcher. Anyway, it has all paid off because all voluptuous women now love him.

I have often wondered what large thighs could be useful for apart from holding down large GMC files while wearing black tights. In the old days, they used to come in useful while playing a good game of hockey over skinny women who can't orientate their hockey stick. Actually, the trick is just to trip over said hockey stick and run off with the ball.

Right, now to plan out how to preserve said large thighs. Thorntons do have a sale that I must tend to this weekend :).

(1) Large thighs protect against heart disease and early death

(Research: Thigh circumference and risk of heart disease and premature death: cohort study)
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/doi/10.1136/bmj.b3292
(EEditorial: Thigh circumference and risk of heart disease and premature death)
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/doi/10.1136/bmj.b3302

Men and women whose thighs are less than 60cm in circumference have a higher risk of premature death and heart disease, according to research published on bmj.com today. The study also concluded that individuals whose thighs are wider than 60cm have no added protective effect.

Lead author, Professor Berit Heitmann, based at Copenhagen University Hospital, says his research may help GPs identify patients who are at an increased risk of early death and developing heart disease.

While several studies have already demonstrated that being either very overweight or underweight are related to premature death and disease, this is the first to investigate the implications of thigh size on health.

Almost 3000 individuals took part in the study in Denmark - this included 1463 men and 1380 women. Participants were examined in 1987/88 for height, weight, thigh, hip and waist circumference and body composition. They were then followed up for 10 years for incidence of heart disease and 12.5 years for total number of deaths.

During the follow-up period 257 men and 155 women died, also 263 men and 140 women experienced cardiovascular disease and 103 men and 34 women suffered from heart disease. When assessing the results, the authors found that the survivors had higher fat-free thigh circumference levels.

The relationship between thigh size and early death and disease was found after taking body fat and other high risk factors (such as smoking and high cholesterol) into account. The authors therefore suggest that the risk from narrow thighs could be associated with too little muscle mass in the region. This is problematic because it may lead to low insulin sensitivity and type 2 diabetes and, in the long run, heart disease, they explain.

The authors conclude that the study "found that the risk of having small thighs was associated with development of cardiovascular morbidity and early mortality. This increased risk was found independent of abdominal and general obesity, lifestyle and cardiovascular risk factors such as blood pressure and lipids related to early cardio vascular morbidity and mortality".

The authors believe that doctors could use thigh size as an early marker for at risk patients and suggest that individuals increase lower body exercise in order to increase the size of the their thighs if necessary. Further research would be needed, however, to assess whether this approach was worthwhile.

An accompanying editorial supports the need for more research to test the strength of this association.

Contact:
Professor Berit L Heitmann, Research Unit for Dietary Studies at the Institute of Preventive Medicine, Copenhagen, Denmark
Email: blh@ipm.regionh.dk

Meanwhile at Worcesterwitz Towers - Dr Steve Choong has left the GMC

Too many Dim Sums

Previously on Ward 87, I wrote Shrinks in Trouble.

I had to chuckle this week. Dr Choong's response to the GMC ended up in my post.

Steve Choong is some kind of Medical Director of Worcestershire Mental Health Trust. Choong is therefore responsible for everything. He happened to be the Medical Director and GMC Panelist during the time the GMC threw their net over me in the year 2007. Of course, he failed to declare this anywhere. Choong and resident fellow oddballs made such a advertising fuss about the GMC investigation against me. Flags were flown, people panicked, no one spoke to me at the Trust and so forth. It was all such a hullabaloo. In the confusion, they ran around like headless chickens wondering what they should do about me. Talking to me in that week person to person was of course out of the question. So they phoned the GMC, fretted, whined and finally decided to fire me. No reason was given bar the fact that they didn't want a person investigated by the GMC working for them. By then they had discovered, I was a whistleblower and OMG how they must have flapped their tiny little minds.

Apparently, I had not told them about the GMC investigation. I quietly pointed out that actually the GMC had already told them about it three days before. I then asked for their protocol where I am supposed to tell them about it, they huffed and puffed and told me they had no protocol. It then transpired that it was the GMC's own responsibility to tell them about an investigation. The GMC admitted this to me. I am describing this scenario because it keeps happening to many doctors. The GMC have failed to advise the Trusts whose responsibility it is to inform them of a GMC Investigation. And there we were, Worcestershire Mental Health Trust being idiotic and blatantly thick.

By the time the GMC net had come off, Steve Choong and his cronies were wondering about the disaster they had caused. They had fired me during the GMC investigation without cause. They had then lied to the world about it including the GMC. They told the GMC that I had resigned but have never been able to provide any kind of resignation letter or notice. They then continued this lie under oath. The case law created by me with the GMC was then used to ensure they were subjected to a GMC investigation. How ironic for them. How ironic for Steve Choong who bent over backwards for the GMC's court case and now finds himself in a predicament. In any event even if the GMC clears him - which they will, there is always the evidence on the internet to entertain all those who work with him.

Steve Choong is subject to a lengthy General Medical Council investigation due to this Trust wide fib. His response to the GMC is fascinating. He essentially denies the time of day. Apparently, he was not responsible for me at all :) and he says that he has left the GMC's employment :)> and is no longer a panellist. Well, it would be a terrible thing for a panellist to be subjected to GMC procedures and having to declare it :).

It is very sad to see Choong leave the GMC's workforce. Such a tragic loss to all mankind. Perhaps they will be able to get a panellist who can actually read properly, who knows the policies and who is aware of the management of junior doctors.

Today, there is lots of talk about Responsible Clinicians. So the Medical Director would be the person responsible at the Trust who thumbs through the revalidation/appraisal files. God help the person being revalidated or appraised by Steve Choong. I am surprised he doesn't just resign his post as Medical Director. He made such a spectacular mess of the issues surrounding me, I doubt he is capable of being in a management position. I wonder if someone can point him in the right direction to the book " Management for Dummies".

So when a person falls foul of his antics as a Responsible Clinician, whats he going to say - "it ain't me gov"? He certainly states this in his missive to the GMC. I ought to print the entire letter so we can all see what Dr Choong is capable of. Then we can compare it to the actual evidence. Anyway, this is what Steve's own Trust website states about him

"Appointed in June 2004, Steve’s main responsibilities include Clinical Governance and engagement of clinical staff with Trust objectives"

Dr India sent me an email detailing all the Staff Grade Psychiatrist jobs free at Worcestershire NHS Trust. What a shame that no one wishes to apply for them. Who on earth would want to work for an organisation that was so dysfunctional? Remember - its the place where the patients are saner than the management :). When you have the rest of England to choose from, why opt for Worcestershire? Ros Keeton's impression of a hen hairstyle is just not enough to attract those doctors. I suspect Ros and fellow cronies with half a neurone and overindulgent job titles will start whining about me writing on the internet about them. Yawn. People can be so tiresome sometimes. It is a really simple rule - you don't lie to the GMC and fib and I don't write on the internet. It's really really simple. Mind you that half a neurone on the executive board won't be able to cope with that simple little concept.

My thanks to Dr India who has backed me up on this issue. May God bless him with a thousand and one bars of chocolate :) and may his Trust management be imprisoned in Azerbaijan and fed on NHS Food.

Dr B's Legal History.

GMC Chair Faces Questions on the size of his ears.

Dr B achieved his postponement of the GMC Interim Order Panel Hearing yesterday. Despite being ill, Dr B is back up this morning. He has sent a chase up email to the General Medical Council thanking the Chairman for his consideration. He has also decided to tag a chase up line at the end stating that there has been no response or acknowledgment to his pre-action documents.

Dr B may be a little ratty and on a short fuse but no one can say that he doesn't try. I have this theory that this demeanor helps him fight on. And by anyones standards, the GMC have harassed him over minor issues for quite sometime now. Dr B shows us that stamina is required to fight the GMC and boy does he keep going. When knocked down, he picks himself up , dusts himself off and continues his defence.

Sadly, Dr B's predicament is really because Robert Jay QC failed miserably to assess the GMC's vendetta against him. Dr B is a muslim doctor, clearly intelligent and capable, who was forced to under go mental health assessments at the GMC. This was done after a few intemperate emails were sent over the MMC issue.

Robert Jay QC was convinced he would be cleared and allowed to leave the hallowed halls of GMC Towers. He was cleared but no one predicted that the ratty emails he had written would end up in the Conduct procedures. By that time, the Royal College had withdrawn their complaint. Yet, instead of being reasonable, the GMC stamped down on Dr B.

The fire started to be fueled as he was hyperscrutinised at each Trust and mobbing commenced. Each consultant got excited about the warning on his record that was already under challenge in court. Having got excitable, they decided to mob him. That is one of the characteristics of GMC intervention, everyone thinks its a free party and sticks their ore in. Soon from one simple issue, the Trusts and consultants can build it into a dossier of " Awww, he was rude to me". Seriously, what do these consultants expect - they refer you to the GMC and you are supposed to be "polite"?! It is a bit like saying " Hey, here I am, its me Dr B, I shall sit silently and speak politely while you stab me in the chest and ruin my career".

So, we wonder whether the £3K plus VAT paid to Robert Jay QC was really worth it. Robert Jay QC now works for the Medical Defence Union.

In the end, we all have to be buried alive under a pile of legal papers because lawyers have a certain perception that the GMC is a fair minded creature of statute. There is a moat around doctors and lawyers. Neither understand each other. They equate their complaints system to ours. And you tell them, if you guys as lawyers were appraised and revalidated like doctors, there wouldn't be any lawyers left in the UK! I often argue, how would you feel like it if we took your complaint at the Law Society and circulated it to all the clients and courts. At that point, there is a silence and the topic moves on. Yet that is exactly what they find acceptable in the treatment of doctors facing the GMC. Most lawyers fail to understand basic concepts and therefore fail to represent their clients properly. I have effectively given up explaining anything to any lawyer. In Dr B's case, the lawyers he paid large quantities of money to ended up failing him miserably.

The GMC is of course a stark raving bonkers organisation with the brain the size of a small pea and that is being generous. As one of the commenters of this website points out, it is the Blackstone Brothers - Robert Englehart and Mark Shaw QC who props up the flaws of this organisation. Shaw was infamous in arguing that complaints could not be taken up without a complainant. When it came to Dr B and this statement in court was pointed out - ie It was mentioned that the Royal College had withdrawn the complaint so there was no complainant. Shaw QC relied on Dr B's solicitor's apology to persuade the court during the challenge to the warning. Dr B then argued, well, it wasn't my apology, it was the solicitors who advised me wrongly. And of course, no one paid the blind bit of attention. And here is an example of a solicitor badly assessing the situation and bombing the doctors future. Again, there is no accountability there either.

Of course, we all notice when Mark Shaw QC argues one thing in one case and diametrically the opposite argument in a different case. Misleading the courts in this way is never taken lightly. Nevertheless, we all know the Blackstone brothers will never be held accountable. Why allow truth and justice to come in the way of a good defence?

Dr B's case is probably a damning indictment of harassment by the General Medical Council. A selection of intemperate emails to the Royal College has now broadened into mass mobbing. The GMC have a vendetta, the rumour is that they even have a hitlist. Dr B is now their target. Only Dr B can get himself out of the GMC's target range. How he plans to do that remains to be seen.

In the meantime of course, Robbie Powell's doctors who forged, lied and deceived remain without an investigation or sanction.

I am sure that by the time the GMC have dealt with Dr B, they will have to reach for the Omeprazole max dose. He fights the GMC well and he still has a few tacts left.

A doctor can only try their best. That is all anyone expects. Sadly, Dr B may know the law, he may know the facts but the GMC will always twist arguments and the law to suit them. This is why Mark Shaw QC is paid so well. You have to be paid well to place truth and justice to one side. Shaw's hobby of misleading the courts will go unnoticed in all forums. Turning a blind eye is the way of the world.

Dr B is fighting in a world where there is no justice. Still just occasionally every doctor must fight for what they believe in.

Video - Courtesy of two excellent bloggers