Shabbeer Quereshi, the Superking Samosa Master Freemason on The GMC's Golden Toilet

This is the General Medical Council's Golden Toilet. Each member of the GMC Panel sits on the GMC's Golden Toilet while judging hard working doctors in the United Kingdom. Evidence based medicine shows the best arses are the ones with the most hot air.

This is the GMC's tax exemption due to their Charity Status.
GMC's Motto "Giving to the rich and taking from the poor doctors"


Awarded this year to Shabbeer Quereshi,
GMC Panelist renamed as the
Superking Samosa Master Freemason.
" It pays to be just a ethnicity statistic for the GMC"

Samosa Master Freemason

Dr Shabbeer Qureshi is a GMC Panelist.

The GMC entry for this man is as follows.

"GP/ENT Surgery specialist. Refugee GP Tutor, London Deanery. GP Appraiser, Ealing PCT. Master Freemason. Diplomat, Royal College of Surgeons (London). Chairman, Southall Primary Care Commissioning Group. Member, Primary Care Commissioning Group, Ealing PCT. Member, Local Commissioning (PbC) Steering Group, Ealing PCT. Teacher and Examiner 3rd year medical student Imperial College London. Governor, Ealing Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London"

I got quite excited because this was the first Asian Panelist I had come across hence I have dubbed him the Samosa Master Freemason. Firstly, we must congratulate him for featuring his conflict so we all know his connections. Of course, I wonder how ethical it is for the GMC to allow masons on panels.

In the year 2000, the Independent told us as follows

"There are concerns within Whitehall that the GMC may have been slow to act against doctors because of a Freemason network within the NHS"

There are an estimated 8,000 masonic lodges in England and Wales. A number of leading hospitals, including the Royal London, have lodges, but exact figures are elusive and few doctors openly admit to being masons"

Again the BBC wrote

"There had been accusations that the General Medical Council (GMC) was adversely influenced by freemasonry and that this could be interfering with justice during their conduct cases.

And from the crypts of the past

The particular case which Richard Coleman had just mentioned was an example of how things worked. He was a Council member and the President had given him the impression that he had the authority to question things. However when he did so and it got to the President, the door was slammed shut in his face. After that, Richard Coleman thought that Finlay Scott had seen him as a member of the "awkward squad". That was slightly tied up with Richard Coleman’s comments on freemasonry. The GMC had been discussing a code of conduct. They were discussing the issue of relevant interests which needed to be disclosed. He had asked Donald Irvine and Finlay Scott, in the presence of Lady Tumin, whether Finlay Scott was a freemason. Finlay Scott had said that he was not prepared to tell Richard Coleman. Richard Coleman had then been concerned because the President had said that he would put Finlay Scott in charge of dealing with the code of conduct and working out what interests were relevant and needed to be disclosed. Richard Coleman felt that that was not appropriate in view of the Home Affairs Committee saying that those who acted in a judicial capacity they should declare their interest as freemasons.

Richard Coleman had mentioned this whole episode in front of the whole Council. He discussed this with a member of the GMC staff who had agreed with him that all interests should be declared. But after this incident, Finlay Scott had turned on him. Finlay Scott had refused to tell Richard Coleman whether he was a freemason even when it was relevant to the case which Richard Coleman was looking at at the time.

The rules had now changed and freemasonry was in fact something which voluntarily should be disclosed as a relevant interest. Richard Coleman had wondered at the time why Finlay Scott should not declare it. When the GMC had taken out an injunction against Richard Coleman, in a statement which Finlay Scott made to court, he made Richard Coleman out to look like some sort of radical anti-freemasonry campaigner. He thinks four members of the GMC now admitted to being freemasons. The code said that it was a relevant interest, but it was only voluntary for members to declare that. Before this was agreed, Finlay Scott had said in a newspaper that members had to declare any interest as a freemason. Richard Coleman had telephoned the paper and told them that that was not true. At that time only some months later did it change. Andrew Ketteringham had then written to the press saying that Finlay Scott was not a freemason. Richard Coleman had written to Andrew Ketteringham at that point asking why he had done so and whether he had checked with Finlay Scott whether he was a freemason or not or whether Finlay Scott had simply refused to tell him and he had assumed something. It turned out that the latter was the case.

Of course, the General Medical Council are of the view that just by declaring the issue makes it "Fair". No freemason should be sitting on panels at the GMC. It is worth finding out which panels this Samosa Mason sat on and whether the doctor was a undeclared mason. Now that would be fascinating :)

Esther Cunningham's Brandy , GMC Thongs and Full-Frontal Snogging

GMC's Legal Assessor Snogs Lawyer.
Calls CPS Lawyer a "F***wit"

Esther Cunningham was a legal assessor for the General Medical Council. A lot of people know that Esther was pissed on the job. Half the legal profession and the GMC turned a blind eye until she made a complete and utter fool of herself by snogging a Lawyer. Esther has sat as a panellist for the GMC in the case of Dr Helen Bright and a number of others. Currently, the General Medical Council refuse to investigate or review the cases she advised on. It is worth reading the Daily Mail's rendition of this episode. According to the General Medical Council who have always been accepting of alcoholics on their committee, the finding below had nothing to do with Esther's hearings at the GMC :). Sure we believe them especially when the GMC will not confirm whether she was sober.


No. 10068-2008
IN THE MATTER OF ESTHER LYNN CUNNINGHAM, solicitor
- AND -
IN THE MATTER OF THE SOLICITORS ACT 1974
______________________________________________
Mr A H B Holmes (in the chair)
Mr J P Davies
Mr S Howe
Date of Hearing: 13th January 2009
______________________________________________
FINDINGS
of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
Constituted under the Solicitors Act 1974
______________________________________________


An application was duly made on behalf of the Solicitors Regulation Authority by George Marriott, solicitor and partner in the firm of Gorvins Solicitors, 4 Davy Avenue, Knowlhill, Milton Keynes, MK5 8NL on 31st July 2008 that Esther Lynn Cunningham, solicitor, might be required to answer the allegations contained in the statement which accompanied the application and that such Order might be made as the Tribunal should think right.

The allegations against the Respondent were that she:-

1. Impaired her integrity and compromised the good repute of the profession and her duty to the Court when appearing before the Grantham Magistrates Court on 8th November 2006 in breach of Rules 1(a), 1(d) and 1(f) Solicitors Practice Rules 1990 (“SPR”) and in breach of Rule 16A SPR by virtue of breaching Part II 2.1(a) of The Law Society code for Advocacy.
2. Failed to act in the best interests of her client when appearing before the Grantham Magistrates Court on 8th November 2006 in breach of Rule 1(c) SPR.
2
3. Brought the profession into disrepute whilst delivering legal training to members of the profession on 17th and 18th May 2007 in breach of Rules 1(c), 1(d) and 1(f) SPR.
4. Failed to provide a prompt response to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (“SRA”) in breach of her duty to cooperate with the SRA under Rule 20.03(1) of The Code.

The application was heard at The Court Room, 3rd Floor, Gate House, 1 Farringdon Street, London, EC4M 7NS on 13th January 2009 when George Marriott appeared as the Applicant, and the Respondent appeared and was represented by Richard Nelson, solicitor in the firm of Business Defence Solicitors, 30-31 Furnival Street, London EC4 1JQ.

The evidence before the Tribunal included the admissions of the Respondent, an email message dated 15th October 2008 from Mrs Justice Macur to the Respondent and a number of references relating to the Respondent’s character.

At the conclusion of the hearing the Tribunal made the following Order:-

The Tribunal Orders that the Respondent, Esther Lynn Cunningham solicitor, be suspended from practice as a solicitor for the period of six months to commence on the 13th day of January 2009 and it further Orders that she do pay the costs of and incidental to this application and enquiry fixed in the sum of £5,750.00.

The facts are set out in paragraphs 1 – 22 hereunder:-

1. The Respondent, born in 1956, was admitted as a solicitor on 16th June 1980 and her name remained on the Roll. The Respondent did not currently have a practising certificate.
2. The Respondent appeared before Grantham Magistrates Court on 8th November 2006 where her cousin, Mr B, faced a charge of being in charge of a dog which was dangerously out of control. The dog in question belonged to the Respondent’s son and was being looked after by Mr B while the Respondent and her son were on holiday.
3. The Clerk to the Justices at Grantham Magistrates Court, Mr P, raised matters relating to the Respondent’s conduct in court with the SRA by a letter dated 10th November 2006, to which he attached the handwritten record of the court usher Ms C.
4. The court usher’s contemporaneous record of the hearing, interpreted in light of Mr P’s letter of complaint and substantiated by accounts of Mr C (a solicitor) and Ms D both of the Crown Prosecution Service, noted that the Respondent:-
�� forcibly kissed another solicitor;
�� aggressively demanded to know the identity of other people within the courtroom;
�� behaved as if drunk;
�� refused to sit down until encouraged to do so by her assistant;
�� interrupted the Magistrates whilst they gave their ruling;
�� was escorted out of the courtroom by a security guard; and


3 after removal from the court demanded to know the identities of the Magistrates, stating that she was a District Judge, before telling the Usher to “fuck off” when she (the Usher) refused to divulge this information.

5. The Respondent also referred to the CPS Prosecutor, Mr C, as a “fuckwit”. This, the Respondent subsequently claimed was not meant to be offensive but was intended to be derogatory. The Respondent has since told the SRA that she used the term as an insult to Mr C’s professional competence. The Respondent stated that Mr C, in his role as a Prosecutor for the CPS, “has been called far worse things in his time”.

6. When asked to explain her conduct by the SRA, the Respondent wrote in a letter dated 5th February 2007 that she “should not have gone” to Court, was “thrown” because she was “too close to the problem” and had accordingly upset the Magistrates by being “forceful” in her objection to the Prosecution’s amendment to Mr B’s charge.

7. Despite it having been recorded in the court usher’s contemporaneous record, the Respondent in her letter of 18th November 2007 denied using abusive language before the Usher although she said she “realise[d] that [she] should not have attended Court as [her] behaviour was likely to be somewhat robust.”

8. The Respondent also denied being drunk, in her letter of 5th February 2007, and told the SRA that she had a migraine, which explained her swaying and the need to hold on to the bench to steady herself. The Respondent further told the SRA that she suffers from a medical condition, the medication for which can make it smell as if she has been drinking.

9. In her letters dated 5th February 2007, 16th July 2007 and 18th November 2007, the Respondent told the SRA that she did not appear before the Court in a legal representative capacity and therefore did not appear as a solicitor. However:-

- prior to the hearing, the Respondent wrote to the CPS on headed paper which noted that she was a Solicitor Advocate;
- the Respondent wrote to the CPS in terms that she represented Mr B;
- the Respondent spoke with the CPS about the charge against Mr B on the morning of the hearing;
- once at Court, the Respondent acted as Mr B’s Advocate by booking in with the Court Usher;
- the Respondent made representations to the Court on behalf of Mr B;
- the Respondent forcefully objected to the amendment of the charge against Mr B;
- all members of the Court considered that the Respondent was there to represent Mr B (the defendant);
4
- the Respondent again telephoned the CPS on behalf of Mr B after the hearing; and
- the Respondent told the SRA that it was “unfortunate on the day an application to up-grade [sic] the charge was made without reference to [her]”.

10. In her letter of 16th July 2007 the Respondent said that she “went into the Magistrate’s [sic] Court to see what was going on” and “decided to call in at the Magistrate’s [sic] to see how proceedings went” with her research assistant “as moral support to see what was happening”.

11. The Respondent delivers legal training to the profession through her company, Cunningham Training Limited (“CTL”), and through other training providers. The Respondent was the tutor on a two day course for solicitors seeking to obtain their Higher Rights of Audience arranged through A, a large legal training provider, on 17th and 18th May 2007.

12. A delegate from the SRA attended the course and noted that the Respondent behaved as if drunk on both days.

13. Other delegates attending the course on the first day were similarly concerned that the Respondent behaved as if drunk and expressed as much to the chief executive of A, Mr L, who attended the second day of the course as an observer.

14. The Respondent appeared annoyed that Mr L was observing her tutoring and twice suggested to the SRA delegate that she should restrain Mr L so that the Respondent could punch him.

15. Mr L, having observed and believing the Respondent to have been under the influence of alcohol to the detriment of her behaviour and performance as a trainer and also noting reports that she had been rude, threatening and abusive to the staff of the hotel at which the course was held, terminated A’s arrangement with the Respondent.

16. In a letter to the SRA dated 26th June 2007 Mr L confirmed that he had previously been alerted to problems caused by the Respondent’s drinking.

17. The SRA wrote to the Respondent on 18th September 2007 to formally raise the matters relating to her conduct at the Higher Rights training course and a response was required by 2nd October 2007.

18. The Respondent replied on 25th September 2007 in terms that she denied all of the matters within the SRA’s letter, did not understand the need for a prompt response to the regulator and would reply to the matters raised in due course, after taking legal advice.

19. Nothing further was heard from the Respondent until 31st October 2007, six weeks after the SRA first raised the matter and following a repeat request for an urgent explanation in a letter of 23rd October 2007, when the Respondent wrote to request a further extension of time in which to respond. The SRA replied on the same day in

5 terms that she had been provided with ample opportunity to consider her response and that it would now proceed to prepare a report for formal adjudication.

20. The Respondent replied to the SRA’s fax on 5th November 2007. She denied avoiding a response to the SRA’s enquiries and stated that she worked away from home and would often not see letters until two or three weeks had passed. She stated that:-

�� she did not act in an inappropriate manner towards a male delegate;
�� the observations which the SRA’s delegate on the course deemed to be inappropriate could be explained by her “outgoing” personality and her “bold” teaching style based on “the American method of NITA”;
�� when she suggested to the SRA delegate that she should pin down Mr L so that the Respondent could punch him, she had done so in jest;
�� she had “[had] to have words” with hotel staff which had prompted the hotel’s complaint to A about the manner in which she had spoken;
�� she did not follow the course agenda or cover all of the required topics because she tailored the course to cover the issues which were assessed;
�� her “general condition of oesophagitis was raised”.

21. The Respondent also told the SRA that she was “particularly stressed for personal reasons at the time”.

22. The SRA prepared a report for formal adjudication which was sent to the Respondent with an invitation to make further comments should she wish to do so. The Respondent replied by a letter dated 18th November 2007 denying that any of the matters alleged arose in the course of her acting as a solicitor and that Practice Rule 1 was therefore not engaged. She denied she was under the influence of alcohol and stated that the impression gained by the SRA delegate and by Mr L was due to the combination of her medical condition and her “extremely informal method [of teaching]”.

The Submissions of the Applicant

23. The Respondent had admitted all the allegations. The Applicant submitted that the Respondent, as a solicitor, is an officer of the Supreme Court and must conduct herself in legal practice (whether for clients or when acting on her own behalf), in her business activities outside legal practice and also in her private life so as not to bring the profession into disrepute.

24. The Applicant indicated that whilst the Respondent had referred to taking medication, the Tribunal was asked to give little credit to the Respondent for this as she had not provided any evidence of it.
6

25. The Applicant submitted that the Respondent had behaved in such a way so as to impair her integrity, to compromise the good repute of the profession and in breach of her duty to the Court.

26. The Applicant indicated he wished to claim his costs and these had been agreed with the Respondent in the sum of £5,750.00.

The Submissions of the Respondent

27. The Respondent confirmed all the allegations were admitted. The Respondent also accepted that there had been no admission previously of her abuse of alcohol and today was the first day that such an admission had been made. The Respondent submitted that it was widely accepted alcohol dependency is an illness and often, a person suffering from alcohol dependency is misguided, in denial and lacks judgement.

28. The Respondent submitted that 2006 and 2007 were a low point for her and this had caused her to act in the way that she had done. She was extremely embarrassed, ashamed and apologetic about her behaviour and hoped that this was the final stage of her humiliation.

29. The Respondent had had a distinguished career, having worked her way up, not only working in teams but offering assistance to other solicitors and she was now recognised as a good Deputy District Judge. There had been a number of events which had caused particular stress to the Respondent and two of these were very significant. The first was the diagnosis of her son’s illness which was very difficult for her to come to terms with and the other significant stress was an abusive relationship. This had now ended but there was still recent contact which was causing the Respondent continuing distress. The person involved had indeed contacted the Respondent this morning to try and make her more nervous about today’s hearing. The alcohol dependency was the Respondent’s attempt to try and escape from all these problems.

30. In relation to the incidents at Grantham Magistrates Court, the matter had related to an order for the destruction of the Respondent’s son’s dog and the Respondent was very emotional. In order to deal with the hearing, she had had some alcohol to allay her distress. The incident relating to the forcible kissing of another solicitor was also distressing for the Respondent as the solicitor involved was a colleague she had known for thirty years.

31. The Respondent submitted that her actions had taken place when she was not in control and since that time she had sought counselling and was receiving treatment for her alcohol dependency. She had been reinstated to her judicial position such was her recovery. The Tribunal was referred to an email message from Mrs Justice Macur dated 15th October 2008 which confirmed the Respondent could recommence sitting. It was submitted the Respondent had come to terms with events and had now dealt with them.

32. This was a tragic case and the Tribunal was asked to show understanding and sympathy whilst acknowledging the Respondent’s behaviour was not acceptable.
7
33. Concerning the training course, the Respondent had not undertaken any training since the incidents referred to. It was submitted that when the Respondent had said to the delegate on the course that she should hold Mr L whilst the Respondent hit him, this was a humorous comment with no intention of violence being delivered whatsoever.

34. The Tribunal was referred to the number of references produced in support of the Respondent’s character. These showed that she was highly regarded in her judicial capacity and had a reputation for being polite but firm. The Respondent was a caring individual who would normally deal with matters with dignity and confidence and not in the manner referred to by the Applicant today.

35. The events relating to the allegations had taken place when the Respondent was not in control; 2007 had been a very bad year for her, she had suffered a stroke as well as dealing with her other problems. It was submitted that tremendous willpower and control is required in order to overcome alcoholism and the Respondent had shown that she had this. She was now performing her judicial functions again, and indeed that was her sole source of income as she had not undertaken any training since the incidents complained of.

36. The Tribunal was asked to deal with the Respondent with leniency bearing in mind the Respondent had acknowledged her problems, dealt with them and now got them under control. The Respondent also confirmed that the Applicant’s costs had been agreed at £5,750.00.

The Findings of the Tribunal

37. The Tribunal found the allegations to have been substantiated. They were not contested.

38. This had not been an easy case for the Tribunal to determine the correct sanction to impose. Mr Nelson, on behalf of the Respondent, had understandably urged the Tribunal to exercise leniency. However, the Tribunal had to look carefully at the circumstances in which the Respondent found herself here today, especially her admitted misconduct whilst acting as a solicitor and advocate in the Magistrates Court. That conduct was simply not acceptable and could not go unpunished.

39. It was only today that the Respondent had given an indication that she admitted the allegations and previously she had denied the allegations although it was appreciated that this could have been due to her alcohol dependency.

40. The Tribunal acknowledged the considerable difficulties the Respondent had had and was pleased to note she had begun treatment and wished the Respondent well with her recovery. The Tribunal also took into account the references provided. However, notwithstanding this, the Tribunal felt that the Respondent’s behaviour had affected the reputation of the profession, so much so that a number of complaints had been made about it. It was vital that solicitors acted professionally and with integrity at all times in order to maintain the confidence and trust placed by the public on members of the profession. The Respondent’s behaviour had brought the profession into disrepute and could not go unpunished. In the unanimous view of the Tribunal, the
8 correct sanction in this case was to impose a suspension from practice for a period of six months starting today.

41. The Tribunal Ordered that the Respondent, Esther Lynn Cunningham of xxx solicitor, be suspended from practice as a solicitor for the period of six months to commence on the 13th day of January 2009 and it further Ordered that she do pay the costs of and incidental to this application and enquiry fixed in the sum of £5,750.00.

Dated this 17th day of April 2009

On behalf of the Tribunal
A H B Holmes
Chairman

GMC in Racism Scandal

Colour Sensitive

Everyone knows about my meeting with Paul Philip during Mediation in 2004. It was much like a surreal episode of V. I had half expected him to whip his facial skin off to expose who he really was. For the entire four hours we discussed issues of discontent, Paul Philip didn't blink. This is the reason, all three of us came out of the room and uttered the words "Snake Eyes". Since then, we have always referred to Paul Philip as Snake Eyes. It is vital to have pet names for GMC officials because no one takes them seriously anyway. Paul though takes himself very seriously. He also loves and adores the media.

Since the dawn of time, Philip has made some howling mistakes at GMC Towers. So this week he pattered off to the Telegraph and the Daily Mail who ran an anti spin story about the high probability of foreign qualified doctors being hanged by the General Medical Council. The GMC wants to paint the picture that foreign doctors are not as good as British trained doctors. Shall we say they just remain silent while being quite happy for the media to demonise foreign doctors. Running that tale of woe to the public is convenient for the GMC. Firstly, the public start by demonising foreign doctors and secondly, the GMC puff their chests up and pretend that they are acting in the public's interest. What is interesting about this entire scenario is that the worst doctor of them all was Dr Jane Barton, a serial diamorphine injector who is Oxford trained and ended the lives of many people. This doctor was not foreign qualified but then the GMC didn't strike her off. There are some perks to being Christopher Bulstrode's sister.

The Telegraph stated

Those who are not trained in this country are almost three times more likely to have been told that they can no longer practise medicine here, according to the statistics, from the General Medical Council (GMC).

To maintain his position, Paul Philip told the Telegraph

"Paul Philip, Director of Standards and Fitness to Practise of the GMC, said: “we have seen an increasing number of referrals to our fitness to practise procedures from employers and other public authorities like the police but the reasons for this are not entirely clear."

So the reasons here were tagged upon the end of the entire piece. Philip tells us

"reasons for this are not entirely clear"

The newspapers don't tell us that though. The Daily Mail paints a similar picture to that of the Telegraph.

Of course, the media does not consider or will not even entertain the issue that the GMC may well be a institutionally racist organisation. The details are here. The Coalition government has been aware of this problem for a while and refused to act upon numerous complaints by doctors. The CHRE were warned of institutional racism sometime ago. The majority all white committee stipulated that they would turn a blind eye and that it was not within their remit to investigate discrimination issues. For years, the GMC omitted to collect ethnicity data thereby preventing claims in discrimination law.

The General Medical Council does not tell the world that it is conducting studies to find out about the disproportionate doctors who are being struck off. While the studies continue, the GMC continues to strike off foreign doctors. Of course, when the police targeted the ethnic minority, they were pounced upon immediately by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. When the GMC do much the same, the world turns a blind eye. Thats fine, this is what happened in the Last Days of the Raj. Personally, if I was a foreign doctor I would stop working in the National Health Service and leave England to its own devices. Of course, if all foreign qualified doctors abandoned their posts in the UK, the NHS would collapse. Then I am sure this is the only action that will ensure people pay heed to the injustice suffered by many foreign qualified doctors.

Despite overwhelming evidence of the GMC's malevolent motives and racist attitudes as raised by numerous doctors over two decades, the media fails to recognize the reason for this disproportionate statistics. Why am I the only person writing about the fact that numerous doctors have accused the GMC of racism? Why aren't the media featuring this serious issue? Is it because there may well be mutiny?

The people currently investigating the true extent of discrimination by the GMC should contact

Protection of Human Rights in Public Law

47-49 Carnarvon Street

Manchester

M3 1EZ

Tel: 0161 8340808

Fax: 0871 9004420

Email: info@phrpl.org

Web: www.phrpl.org

The Clamp

This may or may not be the clamp used at UCL Medical School.

I was reminded yesterday of my escapade at medical school. The final exam vivas are supposed to make us all grown up doctors. My finals were sometime ago in 1998. Now, we all assume that finals will be based on our syllabus and that examiners will ask us something reasonable. Well, this was my surgical viva - the examiners had got bored. Two examiners sat in front of me smirking at the object on the table. The question was - what was the object?

This is an extract of the conversation between me and the surgical examiner.

Dr Urologist - So Dr Pal to be, what do you think this is?

Dr Pal to be - " A Clamp of some kind "

Dr Urologist - So what do you think we do with this clamp?

Dr Pal to be - Clamp things?

Dr Urologist - What kind of things do you think we could clamp given that we are Urologists?

Dr Pal to be - Errrm, human organs?

Dr Urologist - What kind of human organs?

Dr Pal to be - Large ones?

Dr Urologist - Now Dr Pal to be, be decisive here. What century do you think this comes from?

Dr Pal to be - Errm given your age, possibly the 18th Century.

Dr Urologist - And what do you think my age could be?

Dr Pal to be - Quite old. All consultants are old.

Dr Urologist - Why do you think they get old?

Dr Pal to be - Because they spend their time asking medical students difficult questions.

Dr Urologist - Do you think I am asking you a difficult question?

Dr Pal to be - It may or may not be one.

Dr Urologist - So what do you think this clamp was used for?

Dr Pal to be - Well, it could have been used to clamp medical students to examiners tables in some sacrificial ritual.

Dr Urologist - Is that so. So, do we conclude that you don't know what this clamp is.

Dr Pal to be - I may or may not know.

Dr Urologist - What kind of organs to do think it could clamp apart from medical students who haven't spent more than 3 years on a Urology firm.

Dr Pal to be - Well, they could be used to clamp your testicles Sir.

Dr Urologist - [breaking out in laughter] Do you think it would be painful?

Dr Pal to be - Hopefully

Dr Urologist - You don't like examiners do you.

Dr Pal to be - Not today Sir.

Dr Urologist - As you have got the wrong organs, what other organs in that area could be clamped.

Dr Pal to be - Your penis Sir.

Dr Urologist - Correct. Absolutely correct. What kind of difficulties may there be.

Dr Pal to be - No idea Sir, the small size?

The two examiners looked at each other and one told me " Right Dr Pal, look forward to seeing you at your graduation then". I got up with the clamp in my hand and started to walk towards the door after thanking the examiners. There had to be a sharp discreet exit.

Dr Urologist screams " Dr Pal, please leave your Penis Clamp on the table. You don't want to cause injury to mankind"

And that was how I became Dr Rita Pal MBBS :)

[ This is a true story]

Warning - no penile clamps should be used by members of the public without supervision from a Urologist.

Whistleblower's Windmills and Carousels

When I was younger, I played in a number of orchestras. One of of the theme tunes played on Sunday mornings was Windmills of your Mind. I like this interpretation by Alison Moyet. The beauty of playing first clarinet is knowing that your fingers will move without reading the music. It becomes automatic and second nature - you know the next bar, you know the timing of the music and you know whats coming next. Life on the whistleblowing carousel is a bit like that - once you have been through it once, twice, you know the sheet music will be identical. You can play your tune with your eyes closed.

The British Medical Association, the organisation who has failed the MMC doctor, every whistleblower on the planet and the ethnic minority, have announced that the NHS Is Failing Whistleblowers. This is a repetitive sheet music. This news is not new. It comes up every year in some form or another. The BMA is like a Windmill - there is nothing new about it. It just goes round and round the same theme tune.

The BMJ found as follows "Among 118 hospital foundation trusts in England, 43 insist an employee raises their concerns internally before approaching an outside body, 22 warn they could face disciplinary action and 23 do not guarantee to respect the whistleblower's confidentiality, it found"

So? Is this some kind of surprise to the world?

Dr Mark Porter, of the British Medical Association, said some doctors encountered problems when they spoke out, even though the right to expose problems was protected by law.

"We get very concerned about people who fall foul of these whistleblowing policies," said Porter. "People continue to raise problems with us and there are high-profile cases, some of which take place in organisations that have good policies."

Of course, what would happen if the main cause of the problem was the BMA and the BMJ? Now that would be interesting wouldn't it. At no point have the BMA or the BMJ ever mentioned the manner in which the GMC treats whistleblowers who raise concerns. Moreover, it fails to mention the fact that leading research shows that PIDA does not work. The most recent work provides as follows

"The author concludes that PIDA 1998 has not adequately protected whistleblowers and makes 12 recommendations for change. Despite the European Commission’s acknowledgement that whistleblowers can play a part in the fight against corruption, the author notes that common standards for their protection still seem a long way off"

Yet it goes through the same Windmills of its own mind. It goes round in circles getting nowhere.

What is required of course is a Health Select Committee Review on Whistleblowing, an action plan based on consultation with those who know the system. We need to stop going through the same tune over and over again on the BMA spinning wheel. We need to play some percussion, shut down this broken record and start to rewrite the sheet music.

Just a word of warning - anyone who treads the path of whistleblowing needs to think very carefully. I write about the reality of whistleblowing - everyone else writes about the theory of whistleblowing. Theory is completely different from reality. Those who can't do it often end up teaching it - and that is how I view some researchers who comment on whats best for whistleblowers. There is of course the issue of medical mobbing that is missed off by the BMA and every other organisation in the UK. It is a serious unrecognized problem in the UK.

One of the reasons for this blog is to prevent as many whistleblowers from raising concerns. This blog details the whistleblowing carousel of one problem after another. Of course, unlike many other whistleblowers, I mount a robust defence -its second nature to me these days. I expect lies, deceit and corruption and I expect the ripples to go on for years. The music to this piece was written out by North Staffordshire NHS Trust.

I should add that life has been peaceful since medicine ex communicated me. The carousel stopped. It has been pleasant but as everyone can see, the repercussions of the last session on the carousel is ongoing two years later. For me it is just like a repetitive piece of sheet music. I play it and with each crescendo and finale, my cynicism increases. I am many things - but I would rather be 14 playing at the orchestra without the knowledge of the whistleblower carousel. I don't think anyone requires that carousel at anytime in their lives.

Steve Choong, Ex GMC Panellist, Ex Plab Examiner, Ex Medical Director - GMC's Maximum Impact

Choong's Men in Tights
Ryans Solicitors " Taking Money From the Rich"
Saving their damsel in distress "Dr Steve Choong"

Previously on Ward 87, I wrote about the GMC Investigation against Dr Steve Choong. Choong has not coped well with this investigation and he appears to be flapping like a wet chicken. He was last seen running around his handbag. I can't blame him really. All this sliming through the GMC investigation itself isn't doing him much good.

To remind ourselves of Choong's actions. I was fired from Worcestershire Mental Health Trust. following the onset of a GMC investigation. When they discovered that they had followed no procedure to effect that "Firing", Steve Choong and Monteiro decided to support the GMC's tale of woe in R v GMC Ex Parte Pal. They decided to fib and tell the world that I had resigned. To date, no doctor has been able to provide one piece of paperwork to support their elaborate tale of fiction.

The problem the GMC lawyers find themselves in at present - is relying on this fib and effectively being accused of perverting the course of justice. I haven't been to the police yet but there is always time for that :). Lets face it someone has to take the blame for this. At present, we have everyone blaming everyone else.

Choong has defaulted into the usual consultant position, instead of defending himself properly, he continues to tell the GMC what a wonderful person he is. He crows and fluffs his feathers and advertises himself as if he is a good little doctor. Of course, during his reign numerous patients hung themselves at Worcestershire Mental Health Trust. I wonder what those dead patients relatives would think about Steve Choong. I wonder if those relatives would look narrowly at Steve's ability to organise a safe mental health unit where people couldn't hang themselves so easily.

I had to place this material from Ryans solicitors online simply because a few juniors at Worcestershire insisted I put this up for all to observe. It is really Steve Choong's CV. Today, I received confirmation from Worcestershire Mental Health Trust that Dr Steve Choong is no longer Medical Director. That is of course excellent as everyone disliked him anyway. He was the small man in the big job that everyone mocked. These sentences are really amusing

"In September 2009, Dr Choong stepped down as Medical Director of the Worcestershire Mental Health Partnership Trust. This was out of his own choice. Dr Choong wanted to concentrate on the clinical side of work and also to spend more time with his family"[ Ryans Solicitors]

So audience of junior doctors - please witness the downfall of a medical director by the use of some interesting tactics.

The material below details Dr Steve Choong's history. Those poor souls being examined by Dr Steve Choong should note his past. They should note the quality and standards set by their examiners. His past is of course that he was subject to a GMC Investigation between 2009-2010. During this time period he jumped off a number of positions to try and persuade the GMC that the investigation was now academic. Of course, Choong isn't quite as clever as he thinks he may be. He seeks to deny the time of day which is expected. I have placed this online to demonstrate the ways of most men of his position. There is a art form to creeping up to the GMC while causing a catastrophe.

What is interesting is that Worcestershire Mental Health Trust is overseen by West Midlands Strategic Health Authority - the very Authority I raised concerns about in relation to Ward 87 a decade ago. I always find these associations fascinating. I have always said that no whistleblower can ever work in peace without being harassed. This is a prime example of a Trust's response to the discovery of who I was. Of course, Choong sat back and wallowed around his own self importance while I was thrown at the GMC. Contrary to his squealing, he was intimately involved in the above. He knows it, we know it, his work colleagues know it - indeed the whole world knows it.

Anyhow, lets hear it for Ryans Solicitors, the men in tights who have come to save Dr Steve Choong from the GMC [ and me!].

Introducing Dr Steve Choong - written by Ryans Solicitors.

Dr Choong is aged 53. He is a Consultant Psychiatrist in Adult Psychiatry with the Worcestershire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust.

Dr Choong qualified in 1984 from Trinity College, Dublin with the qualifications MBBCh BAO.
His further qualifications are:

• MRCPsych (November 1989), MBA (2003).
• Certificate of Performance in Coaching Practice (2009)

Dr Choong's employment history has been as follows:- [omitted]

The Case Examiners will see from this history that not only has Dr Choong been a Director of Medical Development (which we shall refer to as "Medical Director" within this letter) but he has also been a Clinical Director at a previous Trust and so has had defined roles in management within Trusts, as well as clinical practice. In addition, Dr Choong has held a number of other roles including:-

• Chair of Management Special Interest Group of the Royal College of Psychiatrists from 2003 to 2007.

As the Chair of this group, Dr Choong assisted committee members in the promotion of management activities for the Royal College and provided advice to the college. In addition he organised educational sessions and training sessions and participated in the annual conferences.

• Member of the RCPsych network of medical directors.

Dr Choong did this for approximately 2 years.

This is similar to the Royal College Special Interest Group post. The focus was on management and leadership issues relevant to Medical

Directors.

Chair ofthe West Midlands Medical Directors in Mental Health. Dr Choong held this position for approximately a year, and organised regular meetings for the Medical Directors in the West Midlands to enable them to support each other and provide advice to the Royal College of Psychiatrists, West Midlands Division. He also worked with the School of Psychiatry and Strategic Health Authority. Clinical Assessor for the NHS complaints procedure.

This would involve Dr Choong attending at other trusts in order to assist in dealing with NHS complaints that could not be resolved locally, where an independent clinical assessor was required. As a ex GMC Panellist, I wonder how many GMC Case Examiners he has had meetings with :).

Examiner for the GMC PLAB examination.

Dr Choong did this for a number of years. This would involve him examining doctors who had qualified overseas to assess their competency in relation to GMC standards.

MRCPsych Part 1 Examiner.

Again this was a similar role to that of examining for the PLAB, involving assessing doctors in clinical scenarios. Dr Choong is now an examiner for the CASC (Clinical Assessment of Skills and
Competencies) for the Royal College of Psychiatrists. This is a longer and more detailed examination than the part 1 exams.

Divisional Public Education Officer of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. Dr Choong carried out this post for a brief period, with a focus on public education.

• Consultant Advisor to the local implementation team in South Birmingham, and part of the national network of advisors.When working in Birmingham Dr Choong was a Consultant Advisor,
working with different groups of colleagues, including Primary Care representatives, user and carer representatives, discussing how local services could be improved and how services were linked to national directives for mental health care.

• Member of Fitness to Practise Panels of the GMC.

Dr Choong completed this post from July 2006 to August 2009. Dr Choong used to sit on the shorter GMC Fitness to Practise hearings, of usually no more than 1 week. He did less than 20 days a year. Dr Choong received some training to start completing the Interim Orders
Panel hearings, but did not then have the time to pursue that further and he stopped being a

GMC Panel member in August 2009.

From January 2002 to March 2004, whilst the Clinical Director of Adult Services including Psychotherapy and Specialities at the South Birmingham Mental Health Trust, Dr Choong managed 28 Consultants. In both years the Trust achieved three star status and Dr Choong assisted in setting up new risk management and clinical governance arrangements.

Major service reorganisation was implemented including two new home treatment services, with four additional clinical teams for catchment area work. This necessarily involved re-adjustment to distribution of resources and work with patients, carers, staff and primary care partners.

The current allegations centre on a time when Dr Choong was Medical Director at Worcestershire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust. The Case Examiners will see Dr Choong joined that Trust in June 2004 as Medical Director, initially a full-time post and so was a Corporate Director of the Trust with specific responsibilities for governance, including overseeing protocols, advising on policies and procedures, and setting standards and attending meetings for quality assurance. Dr Choong would also chair committees and complete minutes of meetings all with the aim of promoting good practice and more efficient services at the Mental Health Trust From August 2005, even though Dr Choong was continuing his role as Medical Director, Dr Choong also began clinical work for the Trust in his capacity as a Consultant in Adult Psychiatry. This was for approximately half the week. Dr Choong worked at the Hillcrest Hospital in Redditch, as well as in the community in Redditch and attended other hospitals such as the Alexandra Hospital, Redditch, Kidderminster Hospital, Newtown Hospital and Worcester Royal Hospital when
required. Dr Choong's timetable was flexible.

He would run out-patient clinics and ward rounds, see emergency patients and liaise with nurses, social workers, police and other clinicians. In February 2006 Dr Choong became Consultant in the Psychiatric Intensive Care Unit at Hillcrest Hospital. This Unit changed premises approximately two years ago to the Newtown Hospital in Worcester (Hadley Unit).

In September 2009, Dr Choong stepped down as Medical Director of the Worcestershire Mental Health Partnership Trust. This was out of his own choice. Dr Choong wanted to concentrate on the clinical side of work and also to spend more time with his family. From September 2009 Dr Choong has also been Consultant in rehabilitation Psychiatry at the Keith Winter Close Unit in Bromsgrove. Consequently now Dr Choong concentrates on the psychiatric intensive care patients and rehabilitation psychiatry. This involves assessing, treating and reviewing patients who are quite unwell and often disturbed, as well as those with rehabilitation needs.

In Dr Choong's first year as Medical Director, the Trust moved to a three star rating,
and, in addition, he:-

• Ran four sets of leadership training and development for Consultants in these 5 years, including an innovative programme, using the Medical Leadership Competency Framework being run currently. Forged stronger links with Birmingham Medical School and Warwick
Medical School with an increased intake of medical students.

• Supported the development of new services, for example, early intervention in dementia and an in-reach service into nursing homes for the elderly.

• Initially helped to set up and chair the Business Development Group, now well established which plays a key role in delivering/supporting the integrated business plan.

Contributed to local health economy initiatives, including clinicians, primary care and acute health care services.

• Worked with Medical Directors in the West Midlands to support clinical leadership initiatives with the Deanery, the School of Psychiatry and the strategic health authority.

• Sought to promote relationships with Primary Care, statutory and voluntary organisations within and outside healthcare.

He was one member of the Trust Board. The Board consisted of 6 appointed members including himself and 5-6 non-executive directors. Each Board member had a specific role.

The Executive Board members consisted of:-
o Chief Executive
• Director of Medical Development - (Dr Choong)
• Director of Operations (previously a director of mental health services
and a director of learning disability services)
• Director of Nursing
• Director of Finance
• Director of Assurance and later Company Secretary

Andrew Mitchell MP. What did he do about Ward 87?

This is Andrew Mitchell. He is a Cambridge Graduate in History. He thinks he is very clever. I think he has problems. I have had the misfortune of being in his constituency. Before him, I was repeatedly presented with school prizes by his predecessor Norman Fowler MP. Having fallen asleep twice at prize giving day at Norman's speeches, I prayed that when I grew up, I wouldn't have to deal with vacant people again. My friends and I made paper aeroplanes during Norman's sleeper speeches.

Sadly, my entire [albeit] short medical career has been filled with vacant people. This is what happens when you progress from fantastic times with normal people to hyper intellectual egotistical gits. All they can do is talk.

I do though have to accept the fact that had I been of Etonian Cambridge Pedigree, the case of Ward 87 would have escalated up the government ladder. The fact is I am don't have the pedigree. Pedigree is important. Andrew Mitchell MP for instance doesn't have a crossbreed as a dog, he has a pedigree showing us all his preferences for high society and all that comes with it. Class is important to Andrew. Andrew reacts well to classy people and classy dogs. If you take Andy out of his safety zone, he has no idea what to do. This is what happened to Ward 87. Ward 87 in Andrew's view is a low class ward filled with low class people. Why should he be bothered with the death of average people when the whistleblower is not quite of the pedigree he would like.

The biggest disappointment for me this week was the news that Andrew Mitchell has climbed up the greasy pole to the current Coalition Cabinet as Secretary of State for International Development. Until this spectacularly flawed decision, I had supported the Conservatives before and throughout the election. After this, the razzmatazz of the new government has fallen flat of its face for me. I sat there in disbelief when David Cameron exclaimed

"Andrew is someone who is a doer in the world where politicians talk, he gets things done" said Mr Cameron [ Sutton Coldfield News May 14th]

Well, shall we take Cameron's rose tinted spectacles off and try and set the record straight?

Andrew Mitchell has refused to take any action regarding Ward 87. He was asked to raise the question in Parliament, he refused that. As International Development Man, he was asked to refer the matter to the European Commissioner of Human Rights or the United Nations. He refused both requests.

He was asked to make a number of referrals, he refused. Now, the evidence speaks for himself, the people of North Staffordshire were let down by Andrew Mitchell MP who did not actually give a damn how many people died in Stoke on Trent.

I have asked him for permission to publish his embarrassing letters to me. While crowing about recycling, Andrew hates writing emails, insists on writing on conqueror paper hence his startlingly high expenses. He does claim for tippex and glue stick.

Cambridge grads are supposed to be bright. This one has problems reading basic science. I don't have to say anything else about Andy apart from the fact that the10 year evidence on Ward 87 speaks for itself. We should all ask ourselves, while a whistleblower was being shot, what was Andrew Mitchell MP doing? What was he doing when people were dying between 2000-2005. Well, folks, he was sitting there looking pretty.

I think its amusing that he is dealing with International Development while he did very little for the Muslim Community Center attacked by a large pig's head some years ago. He has done nothing to improve race relations in this neck of the woods.

He does a lot for phone masts - something that has no scientific basis. He does nothing for a matter that has huge levels of evidence eg Ward 87. Phone Masts are important to Andy. Where there is a Phone Mast there is a photo opportunity for Andy.

There is one thing have all learned about Andrew Mitchell. He writes letters as if you as his constituent are the most insignificant person in the entire world. He fails to understand that some of us know our onions very well indeed. He applies no intellect to his work, he often has no idea what you have sent him and writes letters as if he is fast asleep. It's called lip service. His is a minimalist approach.

He never has a grasp of the facts of your case and his letters are probably a few sentences long. Indeed, his signature takes up far more of the letter than the content. He likes the sound of his own name - thats why he loves writing it in big letters.

So essentially, that's the end of my support for the Conservatives. I would really like alternative representation but I am not entitled to it apparently so there we are. This matter remains in status quo. So when anyone asks - why was Ward 87 neglected? Well, the answer is - because its whistleblower had the misfortune to have a MP like Andrew Mitchell.

For related pieces on Andy of Sutton.

1. Molly Mitchell for MP
2. Andrew Mitchell Pretty in Pink

Steve Choong Runs to Ryans Solicitors

Dr Choong's Sings " I will Survive" The GMC.
Ryan's Solicitors Carries his Handbags

Dr Doran once told me that Steve Choong felt that outpatient reviews of patients were a waste of time. Choong feels most things are a waste of time like locum doctors for instance. Clearly, the only thing that is vital is his own overinflated ego.

What is interesting about Steve Choong is that he has a large ego which he nurses well. This ego has transported itself from Worcestershire Mental Health Trust to the GMC. Contrary to his best interests, Steve defended himself through the majority of his GMC complaint . Here is the initial complaint decision. Here are the Rule 7 charges. Since the GMC investigation, Choong has dropped his PLAB Exam role, his GMC Panelist post and now his lawyers state as follows

"In September 2009, Dr Choong stepped down as Medical Director of the Worcestershire Mental Health Partnership Trust. This was out of his own choice"

Funny that because he appears on the lists at Worcestershire Mental Health Trust or perhaps they haven't updated the website yet :).

His view of course was this [ as it is with most men with large egos] - what does a pitiful little junior doctor like Dr Pal know about the law. Well, I know enough to get complaints going. Afterall, while Remedy UK are struggling in court with their case law just trying to get one complaint through the Registrar, I managed to get both Professor Paice and Needham [senior figures] past Rule 7. It is probably the furtherest anyone has got with a senior figure of the profession. The last consultant who crossed me ended up getting a five year warning on his GMC record. So, one could say I know a lot about crooked people.

Anyhow, the good thing about me is that I pay attention to most things. I can also turn black to white and white to black in variable arguments. I have outargued judges, won libel cases and pulled the carpet from the bottom of some large legal feet. This isn't about me being clever. Because I am actually not obviously highly intelligent - I do though react badly to arrogance and I find it interesting to win arguments just to prove the ordinary man/woman can actually do it. So yes, I am an ordinary person and yes I can outargue anyone if I put my mind to it.

So Dr Choong finally had a panic attack and decided to sign away hundreds of his money in favour of Ryans Solicitors. It is clear my defence to Choong's last pitiful effort at the GMC concerned him greatly. For insurance's sake, this man has not only put in one defence but two defences. Little does he know, this is not the end of the road for him. Soon, the matter will be debated in the courts, by the police and in many forums. And this is what happens when doctors support a lie in the Courts.

What is amusing about Ryan's Solicitors is this - despite clearly being paid high amounts of money, they have got their case law upside down. For that, we all have to laugh while munching on our Quavers which is exactly what three of us did. Ironically, Ryans lives in the same building as the General Medical Council itself :). Lovely! Not far to walk then when it comes to hearing day :). Perhaps Ryans will charge him extra [plus VAT] for using the GMC''s plush golden toilets and using their Kenco Coffee. The good thing about my documents as ProfessorRod Griffith's understands quite well - when I write, I can produce about 1000 pages in 7 hours, with case law and illustrations. Ryans Solicitors can be guaranteed one thing - money will float from Choong's pocket to their bank account for sometime :).

Poor Prognosis

Raj Mattu has admirably fought his corner. During Nu Labour, the national press were reluctant to feature his plight. Now that the Conservatives are in power, we note that the Telegraph has gone on record as supporting him.

When Raj's GMC complaints were finally dropped, I predicted that the Trust would run after him again. They have.

Raj has not grasped the concept there there is no winning in this situation. It will develop from one battle to another until he is either depressed or dead.

His petition is here. Their campaign website is here.

My view is that Raj should resign from Coventry, take a long rest then decide what he wants to do in the future. This is what people do when they are in a lose lose situation. It may take a long time for Raj to understand this issue and I hope it is not too late by the time he does decide. Then I can understand why the entire battle is taking over his life. Some whistleblowers allow it to engulf them, others just walk away. I am not sure who are the wiser ones.

I must say, if I had been Raj, my main aim was to have preserved my quality of life. Going through ground hog day is not preserving anyone's quality of life. One aspect about being in a war is understanding when to stop.

Anyhow, Nina Lakhani needs to feature him on her list of whistleblowers :). It is a simple case with not so many twists and turns to tax her brain. He is in the list of high profile senior whistleblowers - just her type.

The Independent's Nina Lakhani

Nina is the pet journalist of the Glib Dem Party's health guy - Norman Lamb. She hangs on his every word. Indeed, the Glib Dems are quick to recommend Nina to everyone. Nina and I have crossed swords. I don't like journalists who attempt to purposefully mislead me. The interesting aspect here is once they discover that they have been well and truly found out, they then get their nose out of joint. The problem with Nina is that she often doesn't read carefully and doesn't listen. She does get a bee in her bonnet and rushes around. That is probably why she makes mistakes. Her pieces have a 2D flavour as opposed to a 3D outlook.

Her work on whistleblowing in the Independent is interesting. She once tried to interview me before I ended up beating her in her own argument. Since then, she hasn't felt very well about me at all preferring not to examine the level of substandard care in North Staffordshire - opting instead to hold the product of her own stupidity against me :). I am pleased she didn't interview me. It would have been painful to try and describe Ward 87 in simple language with the "vacant look" gazing back at me.

I would prefer it if the Independent had a more insightful journalist but there we go. I often find it really amusing that Norman Lamb feels that Nina is the solution to doctors in trouble with the GMC. He has recommended her to a number of doctors to my amusement. It amuses me because I can imagine Nina's minimal intellect attempting to grasp the basics of GMC jurisprudence. She already has trouble differentiating between a consent order in court and a judicial decision.

Hammond has featured an interesting case - that of John Watkinson. It can be read here. Hammond quite rightly points out that Nina has a bee in her bonnet about whistleblowers. The first article is listed here and it is worth a read.

We shall see what Nina comes up with. So far, she has written some straight line whistleblowing pieces - they are all the same romantic tales of - Whistleblower raises concerns, whistleblower gets suspended and whistleblower demands public sympathy. After that, each whistleblower is convinced they have changed the world because the Independent has featured them. Since Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust, whistleblowing has been a trendy issue to write about. The problem though is Nina has a very poor understanding of the issues involved. I often read her pieces just to entertain myself. My friends and I count the errors she has made :). It is a bit like spotting the Guardian typos while they crow away about how wonderful their English is and how foreign doctors can't speak " proper" posh English.

AR Rahman comes to England

AR Rahman's most famous work was for the award winning film Slumdog Millionaire. I am a huge fan of Rahman's music. He is certainly a master of his craft. The above video is a fusion of Pussycat Dolls and Jai Ho. Here is his website. Time once referred to him as the Mozart from Madras :). Those of us who know a bit about music composition understand that AR Rahman is truly brilliant. I could play Rahman's music all day.

Happiness is a Lawyer Free Zone

My friend is suffering from lawyer PTSD. It happens to those exposed to long periods with the Great Whites. I have been trying to explain a minor fact to him. All lawyers are Great Whites. It is just that they all have variable sized teeth. The other issue about lawyers is this - all lawyers come with pound signs flashing in their eyes. I have always wanted to use an ophthalmoscope on my lawyers to see how prevalent this is. I feared getting close enough. Afterall, you don't want to get bitten by a lawyer. These fang bites just don't go away with Revlon concealer. I am positive that the retina would show changes startlingly similar to £££££. Infact, I often used to contemplate these issues when sitting in conference with some of them.

Most won't move without payment by the way. I am surprised they even breathe without payment. Then again, you often wonder whether any of them are actually alive.

I have been lawyer free for sometime now and its fantastic. I no longer have to do their work while they get paid £400 plus VAT per hour for pontificating. I no longer have to explain basic medicine to them. I no longer have to tolerate their diva like behaviour and I no longer have to put up with their legal supremacy. You see all lawyers assume they are the cleverest ones of them all.

They must all look in the mirror every morning, preen themselves and say " Who is the cleverest one of them all"? One day the mirror will turn round to them and say "not you mate".

Apart from one lawyer or maybe two, the rest hired by me have been - well not clever enough to warrant the high fees they charged. Then there was Paul Rose QC. His cufflinks cost more than my entire outfit. I worry about men like that. At the end of my dealings with him, I told him he was dim when it came to the assessment of detriment caused to doctors. He crowed loudly about how naive I was to have described the MMC to him. His smile wiped off his face after Professor Sir John Tooke's report came out. I had the last laugh and I also fired him.

I am mean about lawyers, then they are all mean about me so we are equal in the world of karma. There should be a health warning to anyone who wants to hire one. If I had my way, I would dig a large pit, throw all lawyers in the UK in it and then I would surround them with barbed wire so they could never get out. Lawyers belong to lawyers. They shouldn't be let out into the daylight. It is a shame the sun does not turn them into dust.

So yes, I have been fabulously happy since I gave up lawyers for lent. I wake up in the morning, pull back the curtains, look at the bright blue sky and the sun and count my lucky stars that I don't have to speak to a lawyer. I have recovered from my legal PTSD. It was easy really - I just fired them all and went to Frankie and Benny's for a flapover pizza [ a Calzone to Italians] and a New York Cheesecake [ and anyone reading this should try it]. It cures all types of Legal PTSDs for good.

The Negligent David Fillingham. History is how I write it.

Mr David Fillingham
Historical Summary

1. Mr David Fillingham currently holds the post of Chief Executive at Royal Bolton Foundation NHS Trust. He has held this position since September 2004. The Trust is currently in the top ten list of high HSMR [Mortality rates] according to Dr Foster. He also holds the post as Chair of the "Advancing Quality Alliance" (AQuA)

2. Before his current position, he was director of the NHS Modernisation Agency from 2001-04. Between 1997-2001 he held the post of chief executive of University Hospital of North Staffordshire trust, Stoke on Trent. Chris Sherlaw-Johnson who is the Surveillance Manager at the Care Quality Commission stated as follows [ Email from him to Sarah Seaholme dated 9th December 2009] at 13.15 “"Earlier data from Dr Foster does suggest that they did have more concerning mortality in years before 2003/4".

3. He joined the NHS in 1989 after previously holding senior managerial positions in personnel and marketing at glass manufacturer Pilkington. After a short period at Mersey Regional Health Authority, David has occupied a number of Chief Executive positions – in Primary Care at Wirral FHSA from 1991 until 1993; in commissioning at St Helens & Knowsley HA from 1993 until 1997. His past history is notable because there has been no investigation into patient safety issues at these places.

4. In the case of North Staffordshire NHS Trust, the litigation lag period and claims made in the years prior to 2005 resulted in payments made by the NHS Litigation Authority between 2004-2005. The table below shows the level of compensation paid out within claims filed during the reign of Mr David Fillingham between 1997-2004.

Clinical negligence payments made by the NHSLA in 2004–05 for all claims against trusts in Shropshire and Staffordshire SHA
£
Member name Total paid
Burton Hospitals National Health Service Trust 335,088
Mid Staffordshire General Hospitals NHS Trust 652,418
North Staffordshire Combined Healthcare NHS Trust 106,764
Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic and District
Hospital NHS Trust 81,258
Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust 951,905
South Staffordshire Healthcare NHS Trust 33,420
Staffordshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust 0
University Hospital of North Staffordshire NHS Trust 3,515,590

Source- Hansard [15 Mar 2006 : Column 2326W]

In summary, the compensation paid out by North Staffordshire NHS Trust was approximately 3-4 times that of Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust [currently scrutinised by the Mid Staffordshire Inquiry 2010]

3. A March 2002 report by the Commission of Health Improvement of a Clinical Governance Review at North Staffordshire NHS Trust found serious shortcomings in the supervision of junior doctors,

"CHI was informed that junior doctors working in medicine were often inadequately supervised and often left alone on wards, particularly on the medical assessment unit (MAU). During an evening visit we found only two junior doctors covering MAU, which was full to capacity, with a further junior doctor covering MAU and emergency admissions; one junior doctor covered the medical wards and one covered medical outliers but these patients could be on wards on either site. CHI felt this situation posed a potential clinical risk to patients.”

The 2002 report went on to say, in Paragraph 5.78:

"There were a number of concerns raised regarding support and supervision for junior doctors working in medicine. We were told of a number of occasions when it was felt there was a lack of support both during the day and when problems arise whilst oncall. The Trust has acknowledged that medical staffing at all levels is under resourced in medicine".
[ Full CHI Report available on request or from the CQC]

3. The above report found fault in the Trust’s supervision of junior doctors. This is despite concerns being raised in 1998 by Dr Rita Pal, a Pre Registration House Officer on Ward 87 North Staffordshire NHS Trust. Concerns were raised about patient safety being put at serious risk by the lack of equipment, lack of supervision, the lack of nursing staff etc. At the time, the Trust and its chief executive denied that there was a problem. Subsequent to this, internal documents were found stating as follows. A letter from Dr Colin Campbell to Dr John Green, Clinical Director at City General Hospital Stoke on Trent, read as follows: (CAC/ AR/LET 2nd December 1998) Point 2 (first page)

"To summarise other discussions that we have had on the medical PRHOs, I think that the following should be addressed within the directorate as a matter of urgency - (2) They should have proper clinical supervision at all times and help from a more experienced colleague... should always be available (The New Doctor GMC), On discussion with several of them they are still working without immediate supervision for significant periods.”

4.Despite reports verifying significant problems on Ward 87, David Fillingham and his team released a statement to Stoke Radio on Dr Rita Pal. It stated [ amongst other things] “"Where allegations were made about the treatment of specific patients, case-notes were reviewed and her claims could not be substantiated" [3rd April 2000].

In 1999, a internal memorandum noted as follows:-

Medical Division Memorandum
Ward 87
From Ms Teresa Fenech
Directorate Manager for Infectious Diseases City General Hospital Stoke on Trent.
Reference TF/CLS/005
18th May 1999

Point 3

“I informed you that I had undertaken an audit of every single patient on the ward the previous week. I identified a serious lack of baseline and routine observations. In the case of some patients there was also clearly a breach of policy and there was an apparent lack of misunderstanding from the staff of the importance of such issues. I informed you that in my opinion the level of care demonstrated for some patients on the ward at the time of my audit was nothing short of negligent"

[Documents available on request]

5.The Executive Summary of the Creamer Report in 2001 into minority data showed quite the opposite. This is what it stated :-

(a) “Patient care was clearly affected by the failures identified”;
(b) “The Directorate failed to take appropriate action when the allegations were made in a statement by Dr Pal”;
(c) “Although medical and nursing staff were concerned about the range of issues...no one voiced their concerns except Dr Pal which either demonstrated a general acceptance of the issues or staff felt unable to raise concerns”.
[ Creamer Report 2001 and summary report 1999 available on request]

6.Mr Fillingham subsequently engaged in a series of events that were effectively designed to silence the whistleblower. He discussed a referral to the General Medical Council with the then Director of Public Health when the negligence on the ward was made public. He instigated and supported an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive into Dr Pal between 1998-1999. The Executive dropped the investigation and corrected their records some years later. This culminated into the above where the Chief Executive released a dishonest press statement to the local media [ and possibly the national media]. Fillingham’s intention demonstrated by the above has always been to undermine the whistleblower.

7.Mr David Fillingham’s negligent mismanagement has never been investigated nor has he been held accountable for his actions. The above are summaries of documents unearthed from North Staffordshire NHS Trust over the last decade or so. I have not investigated the other institutions he has managed. It should be noted that no wider data study was ever instigated on Ward 87 and David Fillingham did not wish to quantify the level of mismanagement that compromised patient care. No one [ medical staff or otherwise] was held accountable for the serious failures on the Ward. Mr Fillingham allowed the ward to remain open thereby seriously compromising patient safety. As detailed above, despite warnings on various issues that affected patient care, they were not corrected by him. To this day, because data was not kept, it is unknown how many patients’ lives were compromised by this negligent mismanagement of the ward and also the hospital.

In conclusion, Mr David Fillingham is not fit to manage any NHS organisation. The direct reason for the increasing mortality rate of the Royal Bolton NHS Foundation Trust is his severe lack of management skills and the failure to respect patient safety. Fillingham has a reckless attitude to patient safety. It is crystal clear that Mr Fillingham allowed patient care to be compromised at North Staffordshire NHS Trust for many years. It is imperative that he is not placed in a position of responsibility in the future.

Compiled by Dr Rita Pal NHS Whistleblower Ward 87 North Staffordshire NHS Trust 1998. Contact dr.ritapal@gmail.com. All documents referenced can be supplied on request.