Jobbing Doctor who kindly watches out of these stories thought of me and sent the article penned by Nina Lakhani .
Nina and I have had dealings. Nina would rather that these issues be forgotten but I find it rather entertaining to watch journalists eat their own words for tea. As Jobbing Doctor is aware, I dislike most journalists. I believe a large number of them fail to educate themselves on the issues they are supposed to write about. They are also unaccountable for the usual crap they write. They also have a sense of arrogance that doesn't actually suit their intellectual inferiority. This term is used for journalists who fail to review an issue with a 360 degree view. The Independent and Nina threatened to sue me in libel for "linking" to any Independent articles whilst adding my own commentary. This is what she said after apparently taking legal advice
Noting this element of legal bullshit being thrown my way, I asked Nina what case law she was relying upon. She went on to say
Nina and I have had dealings. Nina would rather that these issues be forgotten but I find it rather entertaining to watch journalists eat their own words for tea. As Jobbing Doctor is aware, I dislike most journalists. I believe a large number of them fail to educate themselves on the issues they are supposed to write about. They are also unaccountable for the usual crap they write. They also have a sense of arrogance that doesn't actually suit their intellectual inferiority. This term is used for journalists who fail to review an issue with a 360 degree view. The Independent and Nina threatened to sue me in libel for "linking" to any Independent articles whilst adding my own commentary. This is what she said after apparently taking legal advice
"If you include links to the articles on our website, that is okay unless they think the site is libellous and then they will ask for it to be removed"
Noting this element of legal bullshit being thrown my way, I asked Nina what case law she was relying upon. She went on to say
"I am trying to deal with about 15 things at one time"
She then went onto say
"I cannot get into a row with the lawyers about this, I have to follow there advice"
I pressed her on the case law and legal precedent yet again. She wrote
"I have to leave the office now, will see to this tomorrow. But the lawyer at no point suggested the website was libellous, it was a general statement about websites that use our links, if they are thought to be libellous, we'll remove the link"
I then wrote :-
If statements are made by your paper, then they have to have the logic to verify it. Each time I have asked you to justify your reasoning [ or your legal team's reasoning], you have backed off on your original statements further and further. As I explained, this isn't about angering anyone but about analysing your paper's reasoning.
I am happy to send your legal team a letter to the effect that I would like to request their reasoning. I have requested their address and email so I can communicate with them directly. You have not yet provided it. It is against Law Society's guidance to mislead anyone. I am sure your legal team are aware of that.
In the event there was no reasoning and links cannot be removed from "libellous" websites then I am owed an apology. It is quite disturbing that a leading paper would wish to mislead a member of the public
The Independent journalist and their collection of highly paid lawyers were then cornered, Nina backed down. This is after various admissions that she had sought legal advice.
"Oh my god, they were my words, not theirs, I said it wrong obviously, and I have already apologised, happy to do so again"
Anyhow, we I certainly believe that the Independent lawyers attempted to mislead me. Having got caught with their pants down, Nina attempted to subvert the issue but making statements that I was apparently emotive about the issue. That is her view but then she has a narrow mindset. Nina expected to mislead me and get away with it. She assumed that I, being a person who was a doctor and whistleblower didn't know the finer points of legal terminology or the law. Of course, defamation law was taught to her by her lecturers on her course in journalism. We therefore expect her to know what she is saying to people.
Nevertheless, Nina was caught in the cross winds and decided not to feature Ward 87. Thats no skin off my nose really - it is absolutely fine if Nina wishes to side line the deaths of hundreds of patients and evidence based reports due to a catastrophic failure of her own ability to be honest. Her nose is out of joint and I can't blame her really. This is what happens when you attempt to bullshit those who can read.
The whistleblowing article written for the Independent on Sunday is a illusion. It is an illusion because it isn't evidence based and heavily influenced by Public Concern at Work. It shows a distinct failure in Nina to be able to research a present a proper piece of hard hitting evidence based material for a high brow newspaper. Here was the Independent on Sunday's first article. They are bashing on about gagging clauses. Of course, the Independent on Sunday fails to understand succinctly that it is open to the whistleblower not to sign on the dotted line agreeing to a gagging clause. Secondly, gagging clauses are part and parcel of average litigation. If the NHS is paying out money in a compensation claim, they are entitled to seek a gagging clause as part of the litigation process. The whistleblower doesn't have to settle for a gagging clause - I certainly didn't bring a action against North Staffordshire NHS Trust because I knew that litigation is all about gagging clauses.
The second article is "NHS Paying Millions To Gag Whistleblowers". The title is interesting because Nina has failed to quantitify the figures.
So firstly, if whistleblowers are going to be greedy and decide to sue for compensation then what do they honestly expect lawyers to do? Do they really and honestly expect lawyers to "Pay Out" then get screwed in the media? This isn't legal business. It isn't the way lawyers conduct themselves. There is a real absence of a legal view in the article presented. Gags are part of a normal process of litigation. Its called "business".
Nina goes onto say
Now this is interesting because this is neither a verifiable whistleblowing case and neither have any reports internally or externally ruled for this surgeon. The evidence base is speculative and essentially one sided. This is the Express report and as everyone can see, these are a string of allegations with no verification of evidence by any report internally or externally.
Then we discover who is behind the article, the Labour Influenced Charity " Public Concern at Work". This organisation told me sometime ago that PIDA legislation actually worked and that whistleblowing was safe.
Errrrm, they don't have to accept non disclosure clauses. There is a word such as "no". PCAW has also failed and silenced many whistleblowers themselves.
Are they? A consent order is usually agreed by the parties and sealed by the judge. Non disclosure clauses are built into any commercial agreement. Nina shows us no evidence or reports where judges have actually "failed" in their job in litigation. We see no interview with the leader in Employment Tribunals etc despite the details of International Whistleblowing Conference held at the Middlesex University.
Peter Gooderam who is not an expert in PIDA makes some interesting yet pointless noises in the Independent newspaper. Again, he fails to mention the leading research in PIDA and the leading case by Ian Perkn on the failure of PIDA.
She then moves to Peter Wilmshurst libel case.
Everyone has an option. There is an option of saying "no".
There is some portrayal that whistleblowers are helpless little victims who want everything their way. Sadly, this is not the business of litigation. Lawyers have a job to do - if you want the money - you have to have the gag. If you don't want the money - you don't have to accept the gag.
The GMC and I have done business on these aspects and never quite managed a gag but I recognise the give and take scenario. We know about litigation and its pitfalls. I never expected to have global rights to everything - you simply have to accept the way litigation works. Mediation, arbitration and litigation is all about giving and taking. To expect money in the legal world and expect publicity/freedom is probably a little unrealistic. There is no point moaning about it because the legal instrument is a blunt one. There is no such thing as a free ticket in NHS related litigation.
Many ask me why I never sued North Staffordshire NHS Trust. Well it is because I did not want to be caught in the litigation game. Money in my pocket and I suppose I could have had millions would have meant, I could have never raises these issues or talked about them in public. In the end, that was far more important than compensation - that is my view. In any event, North Staffordshire NHS Trust have never been able to control me no matter what they have done.
In the end, you either feel strongly about the issue you raise and go the whole way or you simply settle on a gagging clause and hold your tongue. In my view the choices are very simple. It is PCAW and various whistleblowing clients who view PIDA with rose tinted spectacles. PIDA is a faulty legislation that will never work until it is repealed. You would have to be short sighted to sue under it as a whistleblower.
Nina ends by presenting two cases that have no independently verified evidence based reports. The better tact to have used was the impact on a lack of protection of whistleblowers on patient death rates. Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust is one piece of data and Gosport Memorial Hospital is another piece of evidence based data. This combined with Dave Lewis's research shows us what a disaster zone we are in. It also shows us the negative impact of these failures on Human Life.
So overall, Nina's cobbled together piece as written for the Independent concentrated broadly on speculative gossip as propagated by PCAW. It is badly researched piece that potrays whistleblowers to be victims who deserve money and publicity when this is a unrealistic view for anyone involved in litigation. I don't blame Nina though because she probably spoke to a number of doctors or health professionals who have felt hard done by.
The key in whistleblowing is not to resort to PIDA litigation. Secondly, one must never expect to get money and get to publicise matters of patient safety. This just doesn't happen in the real world of high powered litigation. The NHS is a commercial superpower who makes deals like every business. The NHS cares about its reputation. One cannot blame it for wishing to protect its reputation. It is selfish and wrong and we dislike the NHS for it - but this isn't about justice 0 it is about economics, business and litigation.
And yes, its really bad and really unfair but hey, welcome to the real world. Lawyers don't give money for free and they also have a job to protect satellite litigation. Lawyers aren't interested in justice. They are interested in being paid, getting the best result for their client and reducing future risks. That is their job. The Independent on Sunday is criticising the job of a lawyer. If that is the case, the ways of litigation conducted for hundreds of years have to be changed. That is an unresonable expectation.
The Independent and other newspapers portray these gagging clauses to be some abnormal feature of litigation. Well, it isn't the case that patient litigants are gagged daily when they request compensation claims. Not one doctor will say anything about that affecting patient safety issues. So let us start by removing gagging clauses from the 18.2 million pound compensation claims in the NHS. That poses a greater risk to patient safety than the low level PIDA claims. It is simply that public sector workers are of the view that only they suffer and that only they whistleblow. In reality, the main indicator of patient safety problems in the NHS is monitored by patient complaints. Whether we like it or not, this is true. Gagging these aspects of litigation causes far more extensive harm to patient safety.
Of course, the biggest silencer to whistleblowing are leading newspapers who hardly feature legitimate concerns raised by many whistleblower thereby providing their own supergag. The Independent does not tell us how many whistleblowers they opted not to feature. I am though aware of a few of them. We can commence by referring to their reluctance to feature Ward 87 :). The matter becomes rather different when Nina is found prowling around our website http://www.nhsexposed.com in search of material. One may use our research but it is obviously too much for the posh journalists of the Independent on Sunday to acknowledge the importance of an evidence based verified report on a ward that had hundreds of deaths. It simply becomes a personality clash - between myself and the Journalist who attempted to mislead me. I am not the only person who has found this difficulty with the media - many whistleblowers have.
Right, the Independent On Sunday can now sue me for "linking" to their article :). Let us test that legal theory out and see what kind of gagging clause they wish to implement :)/
Nevertheless, Nina was caught in the cross winds and decided not to feature Ward 87. Thats no skin off my nose really - it is absolutely fine if Nina wishes to side line the deaths of hundreds of patients and evidence based reports due to a catastrophic failure of her own ability to be honest. Her nose is out of joint and I can't blame her really. This is what happens when you attempt to bullshit those who can read.
The whistleblowing article written for the Independent on Sunday is a illusion. It is an illusion because it isn't evidence based and heavily influenced by Public Concern at Work. It shows a distinct failure in Nina to be able to research a present a proper piece of hard hitting evidence based material for a high brow newspaper. Here was the Independent on Sunday's first article. They are bashing on about gagging clauses. Of course, the Independent on Sunday fails to understand succinctly that it is open to the whistleblower not to sign on the dotted line agreeing to a gagging clause. Secondly, gagging clauses are part and parcel of average litigation. If the NHS is paying out money in a compensation claim, they are entitled to seek a gagging clause as part of the litigation process. The whistleblower doesn't have to settle for a gagging clause - I certainly didn't bring a action against North Staffordshire NHS Trust because I knew that litigation is all about gagging clauses.
The second article is "NHS Paying Millions To Gag Whistleblowers". The title is interesting because Nina has failed to quantitify the figures.
So firstly, if whistleblowers are going to be greedy and decide to sue for compensation then what do they honestly expect lawyers to do? Do they really and honestly expect lawyers to "Pay Out" then get screwed in the media? This isn't legal business. It isn't the way lawyers conduct themselves. There is a real absence of a legal view in the article presented. Gags are part of a normal process of litigation. Its called "business".
Nina goes onto say
"The IoS has learnt of children in Stoke-on-Trent needlessly losing organs after safety issues highlighted by a senior surgeon – who was suspended after coming forward to voice concerns – were ignored. In one of more than 20 serious incidents, a newborn baby girl needed an ovary removed after a standard procedure to remove a cyst was delayed because of staff shortages"
Now this is interesting because this is neither a verifiable whistleblowing case and neither have any reports internally or externally ruled for this surgeon. The evidence base is speculative and essentially one sided. This is the Express report and as everyone can see, these are a string of allegations with no verification of evidence by any report internally or externally.
Then we discover who is behind the article, the Labour Influenced Charity " Public Concern at Work". This organisation told me sometime ago that PIDA legislation actually worked and that whistleblowing was safe.
"According to Public Concern at Work (PCaW), two-thirds of doctors, nurses and other careworkers are accepting non-disclosure clauses built into severance agreements, in order to avoid years of suspension, financial ruin, incriminations and distress before a case reaches court. The details of these claims, including allegations of dangerous practice, dishonesty and misconduct, are never disclosed to the public"
Errrrm, they don't have to accept non disclosure clauses. There is a word such as "no". PCAW has also failed and silenced many whistleblowers themselves.
"However, judges are also failing the public by agreeing to NHS gagging orders when presiding over whistleblower cases in court"
Are they? A consent order is usually agreed by the parties and sealed by the judge. Non disclosure clauses are built into any commercial agreement. Nina shows us no evidence or reports where judges have actually "failed" in their job in litigation. We see no interview with the leader in Employment Tribunals etc despite the details of International Whistleblowing Conference held at the Middlesex University.
Peter Gooderam who is not an expert in PIDA makes some interesting yet pointless noises in the Independent newspaper. Again, he fails to mention the leading research in PIDA and the leading case by Ian Perkn on the failure of PIDA.
She then moves to Peter Wilmshurst libel case.
"The doctor, now broke, exhausted, career in tatters, had no option but to accept the terms, even though it means the public will never find out what happened"
Everyone has an option. There is an option of saying "no".
There is some portrayal that whistleblowers are helpless little victims who want everything their way. Sadly, this is not the business of litigation. Lawyers have a job to do - if you want the money - you have to have the gag. If you don't want the money - you don't have to accept the gag.
The GMC and I have done business on these aspects and never quite managed a gag but I recognise the give and take scenario. We know about litigation and its pitfalls. I never expected to have global rights to everything - you simply have to accept the way litigation works. Mediation, arbitration and litigation is all about giving and taking. To expect money in the legal world and expect publicity/freedom is probably a little unrealistic. There is no point moaning about it because the legal instrument is a blunt one. There is no such thing as a free ticket in NHS related litigation.
Many ask me why I never sued North Staffordshire NHS Trust. Well it is because I did not want to be caught in the litigation game. Money in my pocket and I suppose I could have had millions would have meant, I could have never raises these issues or talked about them in public. In the end, that was far more important than compensation - that is my view. In any event, North Staffordshire NHS Trust have never been able to control me no matter what they have done.
In the end, you either feel strongly about the issue you raise and go the whole way or you simply settle on a gagging clause and hold your tongue. In my view the choices are very simple. It is PCAW and various whistleblowing clients who view PIDA with rose tinted spectacles. PIDA is a faulty legislation that will never work until it is repealed. You would have to be short sighted to sue under it as a whistleblower.
Nina ends by presenting two cases that have no independently verified evidence based reports. The better tact to have used was the impact on a lack of protection of whistleblowers on patient death rates. Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust is one piece of data and Gosport Memorial Hospital is another piece of evidence based data. This combined with Dave Lewis's research shows us what a disaster zone we are in. It also shows us the negative impact of these failures on Human Life.
So overall, Nina's cobbled together piece as written for the Independent concentrated broadly on speculative gossip as propagated by PCAW. It is badly researched piece that potrays whistleblowers to be victims who deserve money and publicity when this is a unrealistic view for anyone involved in litigation. I don't blame Nina though because she probably spoke to a number of doctors or health professionals who have felt hard done by.
The key in whistleblowing is not to resort to PIDA litigation. Secondly, one must never expect to get money and get to publicise matters of patient safety. This just doesn't happen in the real world of high powered litigation. The NHS is a commercial superpower who makes deals like every business. The NHS cares about its reputation. One cannot blame it for wishing to protect its reputation. It is selfish and wrong and we dislike the NHS for it - but this isn't about justice 0 it is about economics, business and litigation.
And yes, its really bad and really unfair but hey, welcome to the real world. Lawyers don't give money for free and they also have a job to protect satellite litigation. Lawyers aren't interested in justice. They are interested in being paid, getting the best result for their client and reducing future risks. That is their job. The Independent on Sunday is criticising the job of a lawyer. If that is the case, the ways of litigation conducted for hundreds of years have to be changed. That is an unresonable expectation.
The Independent and other newspapers portray these gagging clauses to be some abnormal feature of litigation. Well, it isn't the case that patient litigants are gagged daily when they request compensation claims. Not one doctor will say anything about that affecting patient safety issues. So let us start by removing gagging clauses from the 18.2 million pound compensation claims in the NHS. That poses a greater risk to patient safety than the low level PIDA claims. It is simply that public sector workers are of the view that only they suffer and that only they whistleblow. In reality, the main indicator of patient safety problems in the NHS is monitored by patient complaints. Whether we like it or not, this is true. Gagging these aspects of litigation causes far more extensive harm to patient safety.
Of course, the biggest silencer to whistleblowing are leading newspapers who hardly feature legitimate concerns raised by many whistleblower thereby providing their own supergag. The Independent does not tell us how many whistleblowers they opted not to feature. I am though aware of a few of them. We can commence by referring to their reluctance to feature Ward 87 :). The matter becomes rather different when Nina is found prowling around our website http://www.nhsexposed.com in search of material. One may use our research but it is obviously too much for the posh journalists of the Independent on Sunday to acknowledge the importance of an evidence based verified report on a ward that had hundreds of deaths. It simply becomes a personality clash - between myself and the Journalist who attempted to mislead me. I am not the only person who has found this difficulty with the media - many whistleblowers have.
Right, the Independent On Sunday can now sue me for "linking" to their article :). Let us test that legal theory out and see what kind of gagging clause they wish to implement :)/
1 comments:
ROFL - too much
One reason the papers do so well on the Internet is because everyone links to them!!!
I love your style - unafraid and that is wonderful, and humour!!
Post a Comment