Office of Judicial Complaints " Sir Scott Baker made an unfortunate mistake of the sort almost every judge, however conscientious, occasionally makes"

"It is understood why you took offence and Sir Scott Baker has apologised for his inadvertent mistake" OJC July 2010

Previously, on Ward 87 [ I have to really write this like a Soap Opera"], I went to court to seek justice not only for me but for a number of doctors who keep facing different tests of misconduct at the GMC. I came out of the court room having had my name changed. It had been changed overnight to "Dr Patel". Immediately, I wrote to the court. No response. Then that is nothing new :).

These days, you don't need Deedpoll. What you need to do is step into a Court room in the UK. The judge then changes your name immediately to the usual stereotypical name used for all Asian doctors.Better still, all ethnic minority doctors need to just line up at the Deedpoll office and automatically become Gujarati with the name Dr Patel before setting foot in any court in the UK.  Automatically, you rename your mum as Mummy Patel, your dad as Daddy Patel, your Goldfish as Sharky Patel  and so forth.

It then takes you 8 months to ensure the judge corrects your name within the judgement.  Actually, it takes the court 8 months to cough up the judgment. They only do so after clearing the judge :). I went to the Office of Judicial Complaints, not to win but for an admission from them that I had been referred to as Dr Patel. I obtained that and have been laughing all the way to the chocolate box :) ever since. In this world, you either watch Monte Python for a good laugh or you play with the judicial authorities. I play with the authorities when I am really bored. Indeed, I test the system out to see how effective it is. The OJC is generally pretty poor really.

The beauty of playing with the judicial authorities is that you start to understand the way they work. In the upper echelons of power, what is said is often not what is done. It is acutely important for any asian doctor facing the courts to understand this before setting foot there. Equality is only meant for speeches. In reality, there is no equality at all.

Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge once exclaimed "In the eyes of the law we are all equal". This was in one of a number of speeches given at the Equality in Justice Day. Lord Philips went onto say

"When we are appointed we take an oath or affirmation that we will administer justice ‘to do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm’. We act in accordance with that oath. We treat equally all who come before us, regardless of whether they are men or women, regardless of their race or religion and whether they are rich or poor"

And he continues

"So I can give you this assurance. Any man or woman who appears before a judge in this country will receive equal treatment in the administration of the law. The judge will treat each litigant in the same way. But the judge’s duty is to apply the law, whether he agrees with the law or not. So the important question is not ‘does the judge treat everyone equally?’ but ‘does the law treat everyone equally?’ In any society the answer to that question depends upon the motives, the beliefs, the attitudes, the prejudices or lack of prejudices of those who make the law"

Anyhow, for everyone's entertainment, here is the extract of the OJC letter by Sir Scott Baker.[See below] As we can see, Scott Baker is squealing away/slithering away and getting his fellow judges to support him.  It helps to have friends in high places. Of course, the bottom-line here is we can understand why Mohammed Al Fayed [ or would that be Mohammed Al Patel according to Sir Scott Baker] had no chance of success in the Diana Inquest. 

Please note below, Scott Baker made the same mistake 4 times and was unable to read my name on 120 sheets of paper in front of him. Now that is what we call UK justice :). Instead of taking the blame on himself, he went onto blame one of the junior members of his profession. This is called "passing the buck". Secondly, the fact is he couldn't be bothered to be accurate about the claimants' name. He then multiplied the complaints originally against me by 4 showing us all exactly how much attention he really paid to the papers in front of him. He then spent the vast majority of time denying that the GMC had a database to record doctors Fitness to Practise histories. Anyhow, this as we can all see is the quality of justice in the United Kingdom. Moreover, as the icing on the cake, all junior doctors get a "retired judge" while Liam Donaldson gets a Lord Justice and a Justice. This is what the court calls "Equality".

Anyhow, I shall leave this to the audience to assess whether this is an inadvertent mistake or a racist one :). It would be a bit like calling someone a "Paki" and calling it a " unfortunate mistake" due to the similarity to "Pakistani". There is one fabulous thing about being a judge, while they are unaccountable and are paid in excess of £192,000 per year, they are of the view that the public actually respect the work they do :).At some point, I must run a petition to reduce their salary down by half. No reason the tax payer should fund this kind of slip shod behaviour. 

Anyhow, Sir Scott Baker once stated that there was no prejudice to a doctor to have a closed complaint. I am only following his judgment when I feature it here :). Complaints against judges are a secret. The public can officially accept that Dr Rita Pal made a formal complaint of behaviour contrary to the Race Relations Act against Sir Scott Baker, he was cleared much like I was with the GMC. The feature online thus causes him no prejudice at all. No member of the public could reasonably even think that Sir Scott Baker may well have a attitude contrary to the Race Relations Act. No one could even speculate upon the issue or hold the view that he could just be a racist pompous member of the judiciary [ technically now retired]. Of course, why I wasn't mistaken for Dr Pelling or any other name is beyond me. After this, every ethnic minority person would have the confidence that this judge is not racist :) [ I am only repeating the judges own judgment about doctors who apparently suffer no prejudice following closed complaints].

We can treat this like the judicial fitness to practise history and database . A bit like the one possessed by the GMC. For the record, the GMC denied the existence of a database collecting a doctor's fitness to practise history [negative or positive findings]. Scott Baker  denied the existence of a database. The FOIA request from the GMC sent to my colleague confirmed the existence of this database :). All good answers to dishonesties in court come swiftly to those who wait.

Anyhow, please review the extract below :). Excellent admission as I had the tape recordings first :). Of course, I really want to know how many mistakes a judge is allowed to make before he really is perceived as an idiot.

July 2010. OJC to Dr Rita Pal :).

"There is no dispute that Sir Scott Baker referred to you as ‘Dr Patel’. When he was contacted for permission for officials to request the court recording (an entirely routine courtesy) he immediately gave permission, but also took the opportunity to say that, without at that stage having recourse to the transcript, if he had referred to you as Dr Patel, then he was extremely sorry for his oversight and he gave his assurance that he had intended no offence. He observed that he would have expected your counsel to bring this to his attention at the time. If this had been done it would have afforded him an immediate opportunity to correct the court record and apologise directly to you.

It is clearly a sensitive matter to refer to anyone by the wrong name and perhaps particularly so if there can be racial or other associations. It is understood why you took offence and Sir Scott Baker has apologised for his inadvertent mistake.

There is no evidence that in referring to you as ‘Dr Patel’ for a short time on four occasions Sir Scott Baker was deliberately seeking to offend. For the remainder of the hearing he referred to you by your correct name. On the evidence available, Sir Scott Baker made an unfortunate mistake of the sort almost every judge, however conscientious, occasionally makes. When drawn to his attention he has immediately apologised.

It is an unfortunate and regrettable slip. If you or your counsel had brought his mistake to his attention at the time he would have been able to apologise to you directly. He has now done so. It is not, however, a matter of judicial misconduct"

The Wicked Lady

There is a very old film starring Margaret Lockwood. It is worth watching. In the modern day, we observe a different kind of Wicked Lady.

Over the last few weeks, on NHS Exposed, we have been eating popcorn and watching the events regarding a lady named Penny Mellor unfold. Of course, we had all discovered Mellor, exposed her and ensured her judgment was on the internet in the year 2007. In 2007 though few paid much attention.  The BMJ has continually supported Penny Mellor. I suspect Fiona Godlee likes the kind of rough road campaigner gracing her drab journal.

Mellor's ego will no doubt he flattered by the features run by the BMJ, Hospital Doctor and various bloggers. Most of these features have been less than insightful. They have all looked upon the situation from a very superficial level and few journalists have understood the advanced nature of Mellor's ability to waste public finances and doctors' subs. Mellor is like a infamous highway man who is fast becoming a bad legend. Over the years, sheets and sheets of paper have been dedicated to her. Nothing has happened though. Mellor continues as she has always done.

Of course, peaks and troughs of her antics were featured back in he late 1990s. Her infamy waxes and wanes and essentially, the Child Protection Professionals are controlled by her. The situation is a bit like S and M. She hits them and they wonder around the medical profession whining about it. The cycle happens again. The problem though is that this cycle has been ongoing for a decade or more with no end in sight. They have become much like the children who are abused - unable to control their destiny or fate.

PACA is essentially a limp organisation who have never believed in action.  They do believe in garnering sympathy and publicity for a situation they have never been able to control. Nothing has actually improved for them in the last decade or more. They have taken no action under the Harassment Act or Defamation Act. They relied on me to remove msbp.com and then remained ungrateful about it, opting never to mention my name in polite company at all. For years, these child protection whined about msbp.com until someone like me went and dealt with it.

Nevertheless, looked at this situation from an objective point of view - what is fascinating is Penny Mellor's ability to make the entire profession of child protection run around her. Of course, this fits with her diva like tendencies. Divas often like those who pay attention to them [ whether it be negative or positive attention]. Secondly, Mellor has developed an advanced method of taking advantage of the GMC's procedures. She ensures the allegations are flamboyant such as "murder or mayhem" and she ensures there are multiple complainants. These are the two ingredients required for the complaint to go past the preliminary stages.  For instance, if there were 1600 doctors complaining about Liam Donaldson, the complaint would go through but sadly one complaint by Remedy UK meant that the pattern for initial triage was never met.  The GMC have yet to declare her a vexatious complainant but then she knows how to play most people.

This is not the first time, the General Medical Council have taken her seriously. Back in the past, they held a secret meeting with her and her operatives. Then we all know that the GMC is infiltrated with Scientologists with their own agenda. It is simply that PACA is in denial of these elements of evidence and have never understood the gravity the problem. PACA was created not to protect children but to ensure paediatricians hid behind each other against Penny Mellor. It then dissipated research and articles in support of their agenda. Few research papers written by their members have any declaration to their membership with PACA. Of course, while sympathy has been gained for their cause, they have no solution for Mellor. Of course, I often have a solution and like the msbp.com website, I could have taken action in the year 2007. I though felt that some people need to develop some balls and take the bull by the horns. It is now 2010 and PACA have  not developed a set of balls. It will be 2020 and they will be in the same situation - their solution to the problem being repeated articles about Mellor which essentially propagate her infamy and essentially push her into the legendary status.

Anyhow, it is interesting that many bloggers et al have taken 3 years to mention them.  The penny has apparently dropped that Mellor is a serial complainant. Of course, the GMC and many authorities including the Attorney General have been hemorrhaging money into her tales for years. I often wonder whether the current government will notice the large pit where public money has been squandered.

It is though fascinating to watch one woman rule the medical profession. The medical profession being so inept that they have failed at each juncture to take adequate action against her. No doubt they will make her into a legend much like the Wicked Lady. 

Declared Conflict.  R v GMC Ex Parte Pal [ dual complaint by Mellor and her team that was thrown out before Rule 7].

Doughty Street Chambers and Common Purpose

A few days ago, I wrote about my experiences with the money grabbers at Doughty Street Chambers. These badly behaved toads have an interesting foundation. There is always a reason why some chambers are just down right mean. We can see a disintegration in their intellect due to the associations below. Speaking to Doughty Street now is a bit like speaking to a brick wall. The reason this is so is because it is the style of Common Purpose - never to answer a question and always to obstruct.

They were founded by Helena Kennedy QC, Ms Common Purpose 2010.  She also hangs out at the Patients Association.

Those who wish to read about Common Purpose, are free to review this website 

The leading resource in medicine is hosted by Witchdoctor. 

I believe all potential claimants should run the other direction before parting with their money at Doughty Street.  A worrying issue is that Kier Starmer, Mr Labour Sympathiser still remains in his role with the CPS.

The Evil Twin. Which one is it?

Hamish Meldrew - "I don't believe it" 

How dare whistleblowers criticise my "BMA PR"?

[ Meldrew does it with latex gloves]

Miller has taken great efforts in correcting me today. I am of course impressed with Miller's talents for spotting purposeful  errors. This is Miller's Educating Rita post. I trust I shall be gaining a groovy little CPD for learning all about Hamish Meldrew, the evil twin.

I do though wish to refer Miller to the potential for Mildew spores and even further potential for a  second evil twin of the infamous Hamish Mildew.

"The term mildew is often used generically to refer to mold growth, usually with a flat growth habit. Molds can thrive on many organic materials, including clothing, leather, paper, and the ceilings, walls and floors of homes with moisture management problems. Mildew often lives on shower walls, windowsills, and other places where moisture levels are high. There are many species of molds. In unaired places, such as basements, they can produce a strong musty odor"

Sounds familiar? Apparently, no treatment at the BMA has worked so far.  BMJ Editor, Fiona Godlee , the establishment dictabird was found scrubbing the walls just to get paid this week. Ms Mophead with the least sense of humour decided to earn her crust after criticisms that she was robbing members subscription fees as her job description entailed just cutting and pasting articles by Raj Persaud.

Removing Hamish Mildew from the BMA. Instructions by an American.

Please don't try this at home, Hamish tends to multiply and leave spores everywhere.

Hamish Meldrew on  discovering a whistleblower alive in the BMA's Golden Lav. 

Bolsin4UKHonours. Hamish Mildew is hiding under his duvet

 Hamish Meldrum's response when called to support a whistleblower

My colleagues and I never thought in a million years that Bolsin 4 UK Honours would have gathered so much support in 7 days. I quite liked Professor Rod Griffith's offering, Helen Bright's candid statement and finally Elizabeth Miller's fantastic letter. These can be accessed here. 

Anyhow, we all have what it takes to mount an honours application but we will wait for the next few weeks to see who comes out of the woodwork.

What is interesting to note is this, the rest of the establishment who crow away about how supportive they are to whistleblowers have remained tight lipped. The best one is Hamish Meldew. Mildew as a name is catching on because he is rather like Mildew, sticks around in all the right places hoping that the glory will rub off on him. Then most people at the BMA are rather like this. They love the art of reflected glory. No doubt to them, we are running this low class campaign that the high class boffins cannot bare to touch :).

Mildew spent months crowing away about the BMA's support of whistleblowers. Now the BMA cannot bring themselves to support the Bolsin4UKHonours campaign. Of course, this shows us one thing, the BMA have never ever been supportive of whistleblowers. What is said in the public forum is not quite what is done in private. There is a discrepancy and Hamish's actions show this. 

The Greed of Doughty Street Chambers.

 Doughty Street Toilets

There is a reason why I hate lawyers. It commenced from my dealings with Doughty Street Chambers in 2004. Their shoddy treatment and workmanship was my first experience of being robbed. The man who ripped me off  in this case was none other than Andrew Nicol QC. Andy has now climbed up the greasy slopes of  the legal mountain to become a judge. See his entry on Debretts.

Andy was instructed for an opinion on the General Medical Council in 2004. Andy decided that he wasn't going to apply his mind to the subject until the twelfth hour. Internal documents from the Chambers [ and they are concealing some others] state as follows [ Written by Paul Friend dated 30th April 2004 disclosed in 2010]

" Mr Nicol was instructed accordingly, to proceed at the earliest opportunity and complete a written opinion by the end of the month" 

The end of the month came, there was no opinion. The clerk writes 

" As documented on the fee note, Mr Nicol undertook preparation of 18 hours 45 minutes between the 29th and 31st March".

The invoice to me cleverly notes [ missing out the date he commenced work]

* to 31/3/2004

[ What happened to the weeks before?!]

In a disastrous state, I needed to seek  representation from a barrister who was far more professional about his work and would represent me. Despite my disagreements with Robert Jay, Jay actually works if he gets paid enough. Jay was paid enough. We prepared the case in one week and landed in court with the GMC to win the application.

The solicitors at the time demanded I pay Andrew Nicol for an opinion he had not even done. The bill was £3525.00. The chambers called this a "discount". What Andy had actually done was flicked through the papers towards the end of the month and decided he didn't have enough time to do it so sought an extension.  When I refused an extension, he billed me for the privilege. 

He placed a number of post it notes through the files. That was the only thing he ever did. 

So for post it notes, I had to pay £3525.00 for an opinion that never came. If I didn't pay, the Solicitors refused to release my case records. This is what they do to force people to pay for substandard service. 

Of course, if Andy had commenced his work "earlier" as most professionals tend to do [ as he had weeks to prepare] then there would be no requirement for this mess. Recently, I asked the Chambers to particularise what work he had done. The Chambers decided they couldn't particularise it. This was done because they couldn't particularise it because Andy had done no work apart from panic as his deadline was up and he had not done the work.

Anyhow, Nicol and his chambers appeased themselves by stating they had done me a favour and given me a "discount". The letter by the clerk goes on to say

" As a token of goodwill, and irrespective of the agreement already reached between his clerk and instructing solicitor, Mr Nicol decided to reduce his fee".

A clap of generosity for the greedy lawyers of Doughty Street. So, essentially, I paid for work that was never completed and was severely delayed. Of course, these clever little lawyers think they know it all. They don't of course because most of us expect a finished product when billed. In Andrew Nicol's world, there is no evidence that he ever did any work at all. They then go onto write albeit condescendingly 

" I hope this will be helpful and that Dr Pal will understand that on reflection that Counsel has acted entirely reasonably in rendering this fee note"

I recently told Doughty Street that they were nothing less than common thieves.  It is amazing that they all feel they have a right to my money. I decided to write about them because it is vital for every junior doctor to be aware of the pitfalls and shoddy workmanship provided by Doughty Street Chambers. They agree a deadline, they flick through papers at the twelfth hour, they cannot meet the deadline so they fine you for it. Of course, Doughty Street can now return my money but  these unreasonable greedy lawyers tend not to do this kind of thing. 

Doughty Street Chambers prides themselves in the premier GMC attacker. As we can see, they couldn't even make it past first stage above. More evidence of their failings is seen in R v GMC Ex Parte Colman which fell on its face and was dismissed out of court in one of the most spectacular defeats in the history of Colman's litigation. She is due to appeal. Some consider her leader of the pack in the mainstream of litigation having done it for a number of decades. Then she has been around the garden a few times. Anyhow, not all of it is her fault of course. Her reps at Doughty Street wish to command the litigation arena for doctors against the GMC. The chambers is not recommended for any doctor.

Hamish Mildew's "Commitment to Whistleblowers"

The British Medical Association

This is featured to show the public that the British Medical Association is currently running a public relations escapade. It is done to convince the world that they are in support of whistleblowers [while of course shooting them in the back]. Hamish and his mates are also allegedly fond of recruiting whistleblowers to support the BMA's Propaganda Machine. Of course, this whistleblower was never for sale. Anyhow, Mildew knows all about me. Most of the BMA minions tend to run the other direction like large waddling hens.

Anyhow, to test Mildrew's "commitment" to whistleblowing, I sent him an email in relation to the internal documents by the BMA. Here it is

Rita Pal
to Hmeldrum@bma.org.uk,
cc Brian Jarman
date Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 12:39 PM
subject Fwd: For Hamish Meldrum
mailed-by googlemail.com

hide details Jul 17 (6 days ago)

Dear Dr Meldrum,

I trust you are well. I wrote the email below to Professor Jarman. I enclose details of the BMA's representation of me in 1998. The sentiments are fairly obvious.

I am of the view that the BMA cannot progress into the future without examining the past. Many of my whistleblowing colleagues have not been represented well. Indeed, I have recently had a number of emails from doctors in the NHS making complaints that the BMA have been less than helpful. You will of course note that the BMA settled a RRA claim with whistleblower Dr S Vaidya some years ago.


You have made numerous statements to the media about how the BMA is changing and "committed" to the support of whistleblowers. You will recall this


""BMA chairman Dr Hamish Meldrum said: “It often takes a huge amount of courage to raise concerns about patient care. NHS staff who speak out on behalf of their patients should be protected as much as possible, and it is outrageous that they are often either ignored or threatened with a range of sanctions. We welcome this commitment to greater protections for those who raise concerns, and look forward to seeing detailed proposals.”


In 1999, the BMA wrote as follows


"This seems to me on the basis of the conversation with Dr Pal to be a genuine case of a young doctor who should be protected for sticking up for her rights or in the alternative perhaps she genuinely is a pain in the backside" British Medical Association 1999 [ See enclosed memo]


Moreover, the documents enclosed show that representation of my consultant was made a priority at the cost of my representation. As a result, the entire mattter in North Staffordshire NHS Trust spiraled out of control to the situation you see today.

Firstly, I would like you to instigate a investigation into the BMA's conduct in all cases of Whistleblowing. Following the investigation [ an independent one], I would like the BMA to make recommendations of how these problems can be avoided for future whistleblowers. Your current recommendations have been made without consultation with those who have raised legitimate concerns about poor patient care.

Secondly, I would like you to disclose the statistics and information for the following


1. Since the inception of the BMA, how many whistleblowing cases has the BMA represented in? What have the results been.
2. What is the proportion of ethnic minority doctors to caucasian doctors offered representation [ and denied representation].
3. What is your view of the GMC's role in whistleblowing.
4. You purport to be committed to supporting doctors who have whistleblown. What do you propose to do for me on behalf of the BMA. Do you plan to issue an apology? Do you plan to make recommendations
so junior doctors are not left floundering without representation.
5. Please provide the minutes of the Whistleblowing Conference held in the year 2000. Any additional details would be useful.
6. I would like to make a subject access request under the Data Protection Act for all documents related to me held in BMA house.

I am of course sending this to you because your colleague and ex BMA President Prof Jarman does not have the courage to email you with the enclosed concerns raised by me. I do though have the courage to challenge you and the rest of the British Medical Association who have not only failed me but failed numerous other doctors.

Please confirm receipt of this email.

I hope to hear from you.

Regards

Dr Rita Pal

This is Hamish's response :) [ I had to laugh]. Hamish is allergic to all things Rita Pal.

Dear Dr Pal

Thank you for your email of the 17/07/10 sent to Dr Meldrum, he has passed this to me to deal with as it falls within my area of responsibility.

I note that you are no longer a member having resigned effective from the 30/09/99.

I further note that you have made a number of DPA subject access requests in the past. Should you wish to make further request, please complete and return the DPA Subject Access Request form attached below. If you do, I would advise you that we are unable to provide paper records which predate 2002. You have already been provided with data which was current up to 02/09/05 which, therefore, we will not be providing again. In respect of data post 02/09/05, you would have to be more specific as to the data you may require. For example, by identifying departments, names, dates etc . A request "for all documents related to me held at BMA House" is far too wide for us to respond to.

(See attached file: FormAccessPersonalDataForm01.doc)

Yours sincerely

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Darke
Director Regional Services
British Medical Association
Tel: 020 7383 6284 | FAX: 020 7554 6284 |
PA: Marie Kifun Tel: 020 7383 6105 |

This was my response back

Mr Darke [ aptly named],

Many thanks for your email. You write "I note that you are no longer a member having resigned effective from the 30/09/99"

This does of course mean the BMA are still responsible for the events pre 1999. I would be grateful for a substantive response given Mr Meldrum's "commitment" to Whistleblowing. You can escalate it through your complaints procedure in the event he is reluctant to respond. He currently appears to be running away from his responsibilities to "whistleblowers".

I look forward to his response.

Many thanks

Dr Rita Pal 

It isn't only me that gets this kind of response. Most whistleblowers get an "obstructive" response. What is notable here is that back in the dark ages, there was a heated Whistleblowers Conference. Both Ex Pres Prof Brian Jarman and now Hamish Meldrum are concealing the information from the public. The question is, why? Anyhow, this correspondence will continue until the BMA stops responding. This is the patten they always use with whistleblowers. No whistleblower should be under any delusion that the BMA will represent them adequately. This is why it is important not to be a member of the BMA. The BMA have their senior honchos in the General Medical Council. If you object to BMA representation, they will instigate their influence at the GMC. This is what conceited, shallow people do. No one can say that the BMA consists of doctors with any kind of depth. They just think they have a position higher than all of us. Their habitat really is the local cesspit of corruption.Hamish would have nothing to fear by instigating an internal investigation on how the BMA dealt with whistleblowers IF there were no skeletons in the BMA closet. The problem is, the BMA has many skeletons. It is an establishment that has played a definitive role in assassinating whistleblowers by leaving them to flounder. 


The next publication will be extracts of a Witness Statement by whistleblower Dr Vaidya. in the Race Relations Claim against the BMA The BMA's Brian Keighley assassinated Vaidya at the GMC. Novel approach for the BMA when under threat of challenge :).

The Real Steve Bolsin

Everyone knows Steve as the whistleblower. They only know what he did at the Bristol Inquiry. I on the other hand know a different side to Steve. Steve and I have known each other for a while. We have spoken once on the phone. I really enjoyed the conversation possibly because he now has a Australian twang. It is one of those little starry eyed thrills for us mere mortals that you remember for the rest of your life. I don't suffer fools gladly and I call a spade a spade. There is no grey area where I am concerned. I either like people or I don't.

For me Steve has played various roles. When I was  medical student and junior doctor I was convinced his work had changed the system. He was the reason I raised concerns in Stoke on Trent - because I thought the world had changed.  At least that is what all senior doctors told the Bristol Inquiry. So, while I was being shot in Stoke on Trent, everyone was telling the Inquiry how much the system had changed. Not all of us are lucky enough to achieve a public inquiry. I certainly wasn't lucky at all. I chivvied away day and night digging out evidence piece by piece. Lucky for Steve, he didn't have to do this. He is the only doctor in the history of medicine to have instigated an Inquiry of this kind. I think that is something admirable and historical. 

Many people know the public persona of Steve Bolsin. I know that behind all the publicity, Steve is a honest, decent and kind guy. That kind of thing is rare. It is a bit like gold dust. For many many years, I was utterly helpless. No one offered their hand out to pull me out of the cesspit I had been thrown in. Richard Smith of the BMJ didn't help at all. Instead he sent me emails crowing away about how he was a whistleblower. When that kind of thing happens, everyone wants to be a self designed whistleblower for the sake of its cosmetics.

Steve lives miles away from me but yet he was unlike every other doctor in the UK, he held his hand out to me and pulled me out of the cesspit without judging me. I am a no body. I make my business to be a no body because its important to survive without the trappings of fame or fortune which are elements that make you take life for granted. I was probably at my lowest point when I asked Steve for a expert opinion. I had complained about Professor Griffiths to the GMC in order to dig out evidence. The case kept being thrown out and the GMC kept throwing me into the same cesspit of madness they wanted me in. 

Steve wrote this for me. Steve wrote this without charging me.The question the audience has to ask themselves is this - who would do this for a nobody? Well, Steve did do it - and he did it because he believed in me unlike everyone else in this godforsaken country. He still believes in me.

From this point, my fortunes turned for the better. The GMC did not take me for granted any longer. Steve wrote me an email at the time about us all supporting each other. I remember sitting in front of my laptop and crying for hours because I was so happy that someone actually helped me. I had suffered for so long and the depths of my despair was unimaginable. From that day onwards, my demeanour changed. I began to fight instead of running away. I didn't care what anyone else thought of me - as long as Steve believed in me, the rest of the world could just take a running leap.

Steve has always been there when I have called for help. He was there writing in support of me in the GMC case in 2007, he was there for me when my father was dying, he has always been there watching over me. Steve has a different style from me. He is older, wiser and more accepting of people. He has learned what I haven't learnt - to tolerate shallow people and to deal with them. I am intolerant of such things - I am not sure why but it probably comes down to my experience in the UK regarding the injustices suffered not just by me but by legions of doctors. Steve understands my flare ups or as one person called it "mudslinging" and simply accepts me for who I am. Steve has never told me what to do or how to behave or attempted to curb my free speech. He understands that each one of us has a different role in life. 

I have witnessed Steve help hundreds of people who have suffered badly from the negligence of doctors. He does it freely, out of the kindness of his heart. He does it silently and he does it without the world prying into this aspect of his generosity. Steve is not just a whistleblower, Steve is a doctor who feels passionately about the truth and of justice. 

For years I have felt like his parasite, I have felt that I always take from him like many others and never give anything back. I often feel victims are like emotional vampires. They are unable to give but can always take. I hated being a vampire and always asking him for things but never quite being able to do anything for him. It has plagued me for years. It is though difficult to reach out to Steve in any way because he often becomes distant or disappears for long periods of time. He isn't the kind of person you can build a proper friendship with. I have always compared him to the caped crusader. I shine the light at Gotham City and Steve saves the day then disappears. 

For me, I only have fragments of his persona that I have to fit together in a jigsaw. I often feel extremely sad about how one man was allowed to leave for Australia, how his young family was forced to pack their bags and leave their homes. I often wish I was there at Heathrow begging them all not to leave - because there is a principle. The principle is this - none of us should be driven out of our homes by the medical fraternity. I think about how his wife must have felt to leave this country to travel to a distant land with her husband. It must have been devastating and heart breaking. It angers me that none of us did anything to keep him in England. I asked Professor "Shallow" Jarman this question and he didn't care either. No one cared what happened to Steve and how much it must have destroyed him to travel from his homeland to somewhere alien to him. This is what astounds me, why didn't anyone throw him a lifeline? He has thrown everyone else numerous lifelines and no one has thrown him one.

I have remained in this country but it has never been easy. It has been tempting to drive the car to Heathrow and take a plane to any other country - I haven't done it. The reason I haven't done it is because I didn't want this kind of thing to happen to another Steve Bolsin. I stay because I have no children but what does a man do when his career is shattered and he has to fend for his children?  Steve had no other option. Steve and I have never spoken of these issues. I don't pry into his personal affairs at all. I do though think about him and his family to a great extent. Beau Eckland my late friend once told me that we in medicine had lost the art of caring for those that matter - for our colleagues and our friends. We had lost the humanity and the kindness that should exist in the caring profession. This country let its best doctor leave and I wish I was rich enough or important enough to bring him back to the UK.

Steve and I are from University College London. Maybe they have a petri dish there where they genetically engineer a certain type of doctor who go on to become whistleblowers. He may be more laid back than I am but we think in the same way about things. I have grown up with Steve - he has taught me calmly to keep going and never ever give up.

I owe Steve everything. As men go, he is one of the best. I say that with a great deal of respect for him and his family. Steve is not only an internationally renowned figure, he is also the kindest, most generous man I have ever known. This is why I would recommend him for the UK Honours List. I may be a no body recommending a some body but I had to do something for him. Doing nothing is now no longer an option.

I do care what happens to Steve and I never want the world to forget what he did for all of us. Some things should matter and we should fight to bring Steve back to the UK - it may not happen this year but it will happen one of these days. It is called faith.

Related Links

http://www.bolsin4ukhonours.blogspot.com

Written for Steve in gratitude for everything he has always done for me in the last decade.

Greens

From shallow people to dishpots. Yesterday was a day of shallow people and today I had finally got back to the normal zone. Richard Marks appeared. He often does appear .  Richard is one of the brain-boxes behind Remedy UK. By comparison to Professor"Shallow" Jarman, Marks is funny, warm and generous. Well, I suppose we can call him "fluffy" in a way. Yes, despite our minor tiffs, I quite like Richard. It helps that he has a brain that ticks a little faster than mine. It is also a plus that I consider him to be  a lush puppy. Richard copes well with these behavioural traits of mine. Brave man! Actually, "very brave man". Since I walked the path of blowing the whistle, few men have had the stamina to last all the way. Normally, all whistleblowers are handcuffed by the medical establishment, blind folded and whipped senseless and finally gagged. Richard though isn't into that kind of thing. He simply prefers to get straight down to the point without messing around.

Richard grafted away editing  Remedy UK's "Support Bolsin" Letter. In 24 hours, I think he produced a masterpiece. [gush, gush]

The problem with Richard is that he puts  ideas into my head and millions of little  closed boxes suddenly open. Today, it was the idea of doctors in greens/blues. I had shut my mind off to the devilishly sexy doctors in greens.  They were all usually surgeons or anaesthetists. I knew there was a reason why I couldn't concentrate at all in theatre as a medical student or a junior doctor. To support my view, I hear 20 or more emails regarding Steve Bolsin's looks arrived today. I mean, doesn't anyone read any research anymore?!

In 1996, there was a contact lens missing in action. That contact lens was mine. As vain as I am, I wore them to theater hoping to catch the eye of a devilishly handsome surgeon. Let's face it, that's the only advantage of surgery. Anatomy being the operative word. Of course, I had different ideas of anatomy in those days. The problem was this, on the day of the low cut top, shamelessly new tight wonderbra and loose long black hair, there was indeed attention until I landed in theater. The problem was - having caught one of the surgeons wink at me, I lost my balance, flicked my eyelash and caused a disaster. My contact lens went flying into the open stomach of a patient. It was never found. I was blind and had no idea who the surgeon was winking at me. Having been thrown out of theatre by the consultant, that was indeed the end of my anatomy lesson. Of course, my punishment on that day was to make it into the changing rooms, half blind and wearing all my clothes the wrong way around. I breathed a sigh of relief, at least my wonderbra was intact incase I was seen by the surgeon by accident. 

As I got older, my years as a psychiatrist took me far and far away from  the men in green. My chances of Mills and Boon bliss was robbed by a mishap with my contact lens. Still, there is currently a man walking the earth with my contact lens in his abdomen.

Anyhow, I shouldn't traumatise myself by thinking about such things - there is always Richard Marks in his greens to seriously apply my mind to. Richard knows that whistleblowers are traumatised creatures and they all require some kind of aesthetic visual treatment. All pictures of Richard dressed in his greens should be donated to a good cause - i.e moi [solely for medical purposes].

Discovery and Devastation

I disliked today. It is one of the days when I discovered that the shallow person I had been discussing whistleblowing issues with, was actually the man who reigned at the BMA while my friends were being slaughtered in 2004. It is something that shocked me.

I have a detailed collection of medicopolitics history - from the BMA's Viagra fad to their freemasonry connections. One of the links in my stash was this Times article. If you blinked, you missed it. This was the intro to the Times piece

"THE British Medical Association has reached a settlement with five doctors who accused it of racial discrimination. The settlement, reached at the start of what could have been a four-week hearing in Manchester, involves paying an aggregate of £130,000 to the doctors without admitting liability"

One of the five doctors was my good friend Dr Vaidya. Vaidya has struggled really hard following his whistleblowing in Lincolnshire. If we fast forward time, we discover where the lack of representation by the BMA led to. It is just sad to watch my friend fight one battle after another with his hair turning grey. I wrote about his last win against the GMC who were trying to skin him alive sometime ago. Unknown to the GMC, I was the advisor on that case. Vaidya is a brave guy - braver than me, with more stamina. Vaidya has been less fortunate than some of us because his legitimate concerns raised at the GMC were neglected by none other than Dr Brian Keighley. At the time he was a GMC screener and of course has always had connections with the BMA.

What concerns me is whether our friend Brian Keighley, who eats whistleblowers for a living, declared his links to the BMA, while screening Vaidya's complaints out. Of course, declaration would have been vital since he may have been doing the BMA's dirty work for them during this period of dispute. It is this screening out of complaints that eventually got Vaidya mobbed. The GMC's case against him was a mess from start to finish. This is how matters spiral when the BMA fails to represent properly. It happened to me, it happened to my friends.

What bothered me the most  was Professor Brian Jarman . I found him to be shallow but reasonable. He  reigned as President of the BMA in the year of settlement of the above cases. What struck me is that after discussing many issues with the Ex Pres,  I discovered that Jarman did not lift a finger for the doctors who suffered badly at the hands of the BMA.

When confronted, Jarman told me that Presidents did not have responsibility for such things. I then asked him whether the position was merely cosmetic. He then told me that my analysis was complete nonsense. Well, his website lists him as the Pres on the same date as the settlement for the doctors. As it was all over the media, it was highly unlikely that our Ex Pres would not have been aware of it. My question was, what do people in the establishment do when they watch their fellow colleague sink. In Jarman's case, he walks away. This is completely alien to me yet it happens with establishment figures?. They are often terribly unhelpful, self-orientated and toxic. It is this toxicity that makes me ill. I have seen it many times in the past.

Of course, Jarman purports to back the BMA's reformed character of supporting whistleblowers. I was gutted to see that he had simply walked away and left the doctors described above to sink - one of them was a whistleblower.  Jarman would say that this is an "individual" case and isn't relevant. All cases are relevant. We cannot all believe the BMA's propaganda by default. We need to look at the history of how many doctors they failed - not only the ethnic minority, whistleblowers but also the doctors involved in the  MMC fiasco. We need to consider how many senior members of our profession have a conscience.

I had no intention of writing about my dealings with Jarman but I was simply shocked at this revelation ie that someone as President of an organisation can remain tightlipped about such atrocities. They can watch the devastation caused to doctors' lives yet say nothing.

All this time, I discovered that I had been speaking to a man who was the establishment, who had no concern or empathy for anyone but himself. I had to stop communication only because my conscience could not take it anymore. I felt physically sick.  I had been discussing matters with a man who watched my friend sinking and did nothing. This was the friend I had known since the year 2000. I still had some loyalty and respect for what they had all been through and the hardships they all faced.

Bolsin 4 UK Honours List

After some grafting overnight, I have finally developed  a website for Stephen Bolsin . 

This is the URL http://bolsin4ukhonours.blogspot.com/ 

[ Comments can be left anonymously by doctors and other health professionals]. We know all the risks :) of being guillotined at high noon if  hard working doctors are found fraternizing and supporting the whistleblower kind. It is true that we do turn to dust at sunrise.

For those who don't quite understand the medical establishment. They tend to be a bit like a chocolate kettle. It melts when it gets too hot :). This is the reason for the campaign for the man who blew the whistle so hard that it made the UK medical establishment shake at its foundations.

The Coalition Government supported by the British Medical Association have made a commitment to support whistleblowers. They can show their support by bringing Stephen Bolsin back to the United Kingdom and honoring him with the accolade he deserves.This is what Hamish stated on the MDDUS website. Let us repeat it again so Hamish himself can be reminded of his undying support for whistleblower kind. 

"BMA chairman Dr Hamish Meldrum said: “It often takes a huge amount of courage to raise concerns about patient care. NHS staff who speak out on behalf of their patients should be protected as much as possible, and it is outrageous that they are often either ignored or threatened with a range of sanctions. We welcome this commitment to greater protections for those who raise concerns, and look forward to seeing detailed proposals.”

I hope all my blogging colleagues will support this campaign and host the above ribbon with the relevant URL so we can get this show on the road. It should be remembered, this is not about the accolade. It is about a change in culture. The change has to be real not cosmetic. The changes have to be for the better and permanent for all those who raise concerns in the National Health Service. 

Many thanks to the Jobbing Doctor for running the UK Honours Campaign for Whistleblowers. Please may I have the box of chocolates at the end of the year if I can manage to reach December without misbehaving?!  :). Of course, that may well be impossible.

Bolsin for CBE/OBE. Hamish Meldrum on the spot.

Vote Bolsin

Further to my post a few hours ago, I decided to write to Hamish Mildew of the BMA. I finally bagged his direct email address after many years of hunting for it. I have placed it online for any junior doctor to use. 

From          Rita Pal
Hamish M Hmeldrum@bma.org.uk,
date Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:09 PM
subject Nomination for UK Honours
mailed-by googlemail.com

Dear Dr Meldrum,

As part of your commitment to Whistleblowers [ we, that's about 82 of us] felt that you should be the first person to provide the letter of support for our application to nominate Steve Bolsin for a CBE/OBE. As expected Professor Jarman was the first person to reject my request and I have listed him online.

Wikipedia states [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Bolsin] "Dr Bolsin's achievements in establishing Clinical Governance across the UK and globally have never been formally acknowledged in the UK". I believe we should all take a step to change that.

In line with your commitment the MDDUS quotes you "BMA chairman Dr Hamish Meldrum said: “It often takes a huge amount of courage to raise concerns about patient care. NHS staff who speak out on behalf of their patients should be protected as much as possible, and it is outrageous that they are often either ignored or threatened with a range of sanctions. We welcome this commitment to greater protections for those who raise concerns, and look forward to seeing detailed proposals.” [http://www.mddus.com/mddus/news-and-media/news/june-2010/whistleblower-protection.aspx]

Anyhow, please pass this request onto anyone who wishes to write a letter of support. Of course, members of the public will nominate Bolsin in their droves. We are simply monitoring how many senior members of the medical profession are prepared to write letters of support for the doctor who saved the most lives. This should be in line with your current propaganda of supporting whistleblowers wholeheartedly. We believe it is time that senior members of the medical profession acknowledged the admirable work done by Steve Bolsin for the benefit of the public

I look forward to your commitment towards whistleblowers and your letter of support for Prof Steve Bolsin. We shall be developing a website so members of the UK public can place their comments and support for this nomination.

Regards

Dr Rita Pal

Related Link http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/UKgovernment/Honoursawardsandmedals/DG_067917

cc David Cameron 10 Downing Street London
cc Andrew Lansley Department of Health.
cc Norman Lamb MP

Nominating Professor Steve Bolsin for the Honours List

I hope many of you who follow the adventures of whistleblowers will unanimously support the application for Professor Steve Bolsin to be on the UK's Honours List. We have observed numerous members of the establishment who have achieved a CBE but have not been popular with the public. We believe that Professor Steve Bolsin has done more for patient safety in this country than many people in high places. As we all know, he sacrificed his career to raise concerns about children who were dying at the hands of incompetent surgeons. We believe that Steve should be persuaded to return to the National Health Service by the Department of Health to send a message out to all of us - that the system is serious about protecting whistleblowers.

He was also instrumental in achieving the Bristol Inquiry. He remains the only whistleblower to have achieved an inquiry into his concerns. That inquiry has been the leading light for those concerned with patient safety.Stephen is not only admirable in all he has achieved. He is also kind enough to assist anyone who communicates with him. His continual dedication to patient safety is admirable.

The establishment is not keen on nominating Bolsin. Indeed, I asked Professor Brian Jarman to nominate him today. He refused despite telling us all how much he supported the actions of a whistleblower. Soon I shall be emailing Hamish Meldrum and asking him to write a letter of support for Steve Bolsin. Let us see whether the BMA can put its money where its mouth is.

The link for the UK Honours is here. 

Please download the guidance for all those writing letters of support. Please send them to ritasaraswatipal@gmail.com

Dangerous Eccentric and Ex Jail Bird on Child Protection Working Party :)

Qualifications - None

I choked on my cornflakes today while reading this press release. I had to howl with laughter at the GMC's primary choice on the Working Party.  Many may like to refer to these notable infamous pieces. 

1. Domain Name Bungle
2. Download the judgment  on the Wicked Conspirator
3. Scientology.

Just to summarize this, the GMC has invited an ex convict to its Working Party :).Perhaps the GMC will invest in some Teletubbies DVDs and sit her in the corner to learn the basics first.

GMC announces review of child protection guidance

Press Release

15 Jul 2010

A working group is to produce new guidance for doctors involved in child protection

The working group's members come from different perspectives but they are all committed to developing clear guidance for doctors which will promote good practice and benefit vulnerable children.

Niall Dickson, GMC Chief Executive

The General Medical Council has announced that Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Thorpe, Deputy Chair of the Family Justice Council and Lord Justice of Appeal will chair a working group to produce new guidance for doctors involved in child protection.

The working group has been asked to develop guidance that will help doctors involved in this complex and challenging area of practice to interpret and apply the standards expected by the GMC.

The group has 14 members including 7 doctors from a number of specialities and 7 lay members. It includes individuals from a range of backgrounds with an understanding of both children's and parents' perspectives.

The Working Group will:

* Review the content of relevant GMC guidance against significant developments regarding doctors' roles in child protection (such as Good Medical Practice; 0-18 years: guidance for all doctors, Confidentiality, and Acting as an expert witness)

* Identify and consider any guidelines other organisations have published on issues related to doctors in child protection work and how this might inform or complement GMC guidance.

* Engage with a range of experts on the challenges and practical difficulties doctors face undertaking child protection work, and to seek the views of key interests.

* Decide the scope and structure of new guidance, taking account of other GMC guidance.

* Recommend a draft of the guidance to the GMC

* Oversee and analyse the outcome of a formal consultation exercise.

* Consider, and advise on, ways in which the new guidance could be disseminated, promoted, and used, and its impact evaluated.

Niall Dickson, the Chief Executive of the General Medical Council, said:

"Lord Justice Thorpe brings a wealth of experience and expertise to this important role - providing doctors who work in child protection with guidance that will help them in their day to day work is vital. We need to build confidence in what will always be a difficult area of practice. The working group's members come from different perspectives but they are all committed to developing clear guidance for doctors which will promote good practice and benefit vulnerable children".

The Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Thorpe, Chair of the Working Group on Child Protection, said:

"I am delighted to be asked to chair the group. I very much hope that the initiative the GMC has taken will contribute to the future in which doctors feel secure in contributing to child protection procedures, including giving expert evidence to the courts."

The fourteen members of the Working Group are:

* The Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Thorpe (Chair), Deputy Chair of the Family Justice Council, Lord Justice of Appeal

GMC Council members:

* Dr John Jenkins, Consultant Paediatrician

* Ms Ros Levenson, Independent Researcher and Policy Consultant

* Professor Terrence Stephenson, President, RCPCH

Other Working Group members:

* Dr Keith Brent, Consultant Paediatrician

* Ms Anne Goymer, UK Strategic Lead Health, Barnado's

* Dr Danya Glaser, Consultant Child & Adolescent Psychiatrist

* Dr Diane Hart, Principal Officer, National Children's Bureau

* Dr Kathleen Lessells, Retired GP and Medical Adviser for Fostering and Adoption

* Ms Bridget Lindley, Deputy Chief Executive and Legal Adviser, Family Rights Group

* Baroness McIntosh, House of Lords

* Mrs Penny Mellor, Parent Advocate

* Dr Heather Payne, Consultant Paediatrician

* Dr Rosalyn Proops, Consultant Paediatrician

All members have been asked to serve as individuals, rather than as representatives of organisations.

The new guidance will complement and support guidance already developed by the General Medical Council which sets out the key ethical values that must underpin practice, including 0-18 years: guidance for all doctors; Consent: patients and doctors making decisions together and Confidentiality.

The group has been asked to produce the new guidance by the end of 2011, and will begin the process by issuing a call for evidence this summer. The Working Group will seek both oral and written evidence from a wide range of individuals and organisations, to understand the issues from different perspectives. More details about this process will be announced shortly.

Twelfth Hour

Child Protection is a bit like whistleblowing. Similar traits can be observed. In each case, the GMC doesn't know what the hell it is doing. Doctors find themselves in trouble if they raise concerns. They also find themselves in trouble if they don't raise concerns. Most of the time, no one knows what they are supposed to do. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. During these cases, the General Medical Council can be observed to be a hapless regulatory body running around like headless chickens pleasing the media. In the middle of it all, children are failed and doctors are struck off.

Anyhow, after the campaign instigated by PACA and others [ which hasn't done much to increase the understanding of the public], the GMC have decided to review the Child Protection Guidance. Essentially, this is the kind of " Please help, we haven't a f*** clue what we are doing, can an eminent judge tell us what to do". Having prosecuted, stripped all child protection doctors naked, ruined their livelihoods, ensured most are struck off or dead, the GMC have now decided to find out what the problem is. 

Niall told the world.

         ‘We need to build confidence in what will always be a difficult area of practice.

‘The working group’s members come from different perspectives but they are all committed to developing clear guidance for doctors which will promote good practice and benefit vulnerable children.’

Lord Justice Thorpe piped up : ‘I very much hope that the initiative the GMC has taken will contribute to the future in which doctors feel secure in contributing to child protection procedures, including giving expert evidence to the courts.’

Niall has clearly been polishing his head after being embarrassed in their recent loss at the Court of Appeal and a series of damning articles criticising them that were featured in the RSM journal. Essentially, the GMC has been left shattered and burnt. This is what happens to regulatory bodies who continue to please the media and don't listen. Well, there may be hundreds of children dead, many doctors struck off or dead but the GMC are doing their thing - 10 years late.

It is only a matter of time before the GMC is hit with the Whistleblowing issue. That is simply a time bomb of injustices waiting to explode in the GMC's face. My question is, how many patients died due to the GMC's behaviour in cases of whistleblowing.

The Misfits

Helen Bright is going through a phase of chocolate, designer shoes and Marilyn Monroe movies. I am a huge fan of old movies. I have this encyclopedic knowledge of the 30s,40s and 50s films. Well, I have to win at something when playing Trivial Pursuit. One of my character flaws was to be extremely competitive. This character flaw can often drive people to destruction if it is not kept in check. This is possibly the reason why I tend to be meticulous in everything I do. That was also part of the problem between me and the GMC. I know the GMC better than it knows itself. I know quirky little facts like Allinson's bread sold in Sainsbury's was once the invention of Dr Allinson, struck off for suggesting that smoking was linked to ill health. Allinson v GMC was also the first version of professional misconduct. Just for the record, I bake with Allinson's flour and eat Allinson's bread. I possibly do this out of respect for Dr Allinson while collecting my Nectar points. It is this kind of attention to detail that is achieved just by determination and competitiveness. Achieving vindication was a competition and a race. I wasn't about to allow the system to beat me. I recognise this trait in other doctors as well. It is probably something to do with the constant state of competitiveness we are asked to exist in, in the medical profession. There is something unhealthy about it in many ways. It took me quite a while to understand that I didn't have to compete - the sun would still rise tomorrow.

One of the movies starring Marilyn Monroe and Clark Gable was The Misfits. Written by the eminent Arthur Miller, Monroe's then husband, it was a interesting study of people. It has always reminded me of the position of Whistleblowers in society. Most of us are totally lost in our own world. This is something every whistleblower finds themselves in. Their perfectionism, their vision of a perfect world, their determination for honesty or integrity and their competitiveness drives them to achieve vindication. This eventually  cuts the  string between them and average society. They begin to exist as a individual entity - something that many people fear. Humans classically exist in cliques and groups. Few are individualists.

I know I could be in he company of many many people but have a sub processor running in my head dissecting and problem solving on how to get through another hurdle placed in my path to vindication. Some people call it an obsession. I simply call it intellectual progress or challenges. I doubt any university or school can teach you how to exist successfully as a Misfit. While most people in society would be ashamed to be a Misfit, I tend to be proud of being a little different, a little off the wall, a little eccentric and a amazingly unpredictable to certain sectors of the world.

I must have spent years concealing my past as a whistleblower from many people and it took me a long time to develop my self confidence so that I could be proud of who I was. Medicine is all about your peers making you feel ashamed of being who you are. Whistleblowers are taboo, they are often judged as failures of some kind, they are often mocked for the predicament they find themselves in and they often walk around society with a plastic mask. It is the plastic face that fools everyone into thinking you are just Ms Jo Bloggs. Whistleblowing is meant to be some deep dark dirty secret, never to be told to the outside world.

Being a whistleblower is my past, I cannot get away from it. I had spent a long time running from it until I understood that I couldn't run from myself.  It has carved my persona, dictated who I have become and sent me through many many adventures through various storms. I survived it all and  I should be proud of it.  I would call Whistleblowing a type of evolution that determines your identity.  It is much like pressing the fast forward button and learning about more things than average people do in their lifetime. The few things I have learned is that you cannot run from yourself and you cannot change the past. The best thing to do is to accept your past and move to the future.The only aspect of your life that can be changed is the future.