BMA Fails Whistleblowers.

Further to my  previous blogs on the British Medical Journal and the attitude of the BMA, it is important for all whistleblowers to understand a few aspects :- 

1. The BMJ has never in its entire history featured a asian whistleblower in its golden pages. 

2. The BMA, has never to my knowledge been involved in any high profile PIDA Cases 

3. The BMJ has always been rather unaccepting of what they perceive as "uncomfortable personalities". By this I mean those who possess a non establishment viewpoint. 

4. In my own case, the BMJ is reluctant to provide the issues of North Staffordshire NHS Trust with any oxygen of publicity. I can of course understand why. The BMA were negligent in their representation of me.
The BMJ would rather that doctors in the NHS were given false information about the role of the GMC in my case.  Of course, it is even more uncomfortable for the BMA because a few people may ask why no one listened when concerns were raised about a number of Midlands hospitals [ which included Mid Staffs]. 

5. It is important to understand that my defences against the BMJ have been following their own conceited behaviour on a number of matters. The BMJ expects to treat people terribly and for us to roll over like a dog to have our tummy tickled. This is the effect of mentally back in the days of the British Raj. The British establishment [ which is distinct from English people] have identical traits of the British Raj. Moreover, control is vital to the establishment.

They expected all indians to simply bow down and obey. In reality, they aren't quite used to full on warfare.  Of course, the BMJ instigates a state of defence, they then blame your behaviour as "unreasonable".This is then what they propagate around. It is really a subtle version of medical mobbing.

Of course, reasonable people who behave appropriately do not end up in a state of warfare with me.  It is hardly unexpected that I will just sit around and accept unreasonable behaviour. Besides, the BMJ was the reason for http://www.nhsexposed.com and the blog plus Ward 87. What the BMJ did not allow me to say can now be read by the world. Given the level of emails I receive, it is indeed read over the world. So, one can actually be independent of the BMJ.

I have never had much time for the BMJ and their editorial team since their support for Common Purpose Graduate Neil Bacon. Any approach I have made has always been structured to elicit a response to prove my point. My point is this, the British Medical Association has released many soft documents about their supposed pro-active support for Whistleblowing. The recent BMA conference talks about support for whistleblowers. These cosmetics have been ongoing for many years. The BMA have failed to accept or acknowledge that they are part of the problem. The BMJ is one of the instruments used by the BMA to spread their own propaganda around. 

In reality, their representation of whistleblowers is painfully poor. As a trade union, they have never ever been able to muster up the courage to support or encourage whistleblowers. Legions of doctors before and after me have been failed by the BMA.  Over the years, the BMJ has failed its doctors as well. In Remedy UK's days of battles, the BMJ refused to published their advert. The issue is similar with whistleblowing. While the propaganda by the BMJ is controlled and they intend to make the right noises, they will only go so far - this is as far as the establishment will allow them to go. It isn't good PR for the BMA not to make supportive grufflings about whistleblowers.

My aim on Ward 87 - the blog, is to detail the reactions of medical publications to whistleblowers. In the days, when the concerns were first raised, the BMJ whinged that there wasn't enough evidence. When the evidence is gained after years of investigation, the BMJ then whinges that it is too late. This is the most amusing part of the BMJ's stance. In doing this, they are only embarrassing themselves in public. 

Anyhow, the BMA or the BMJ has not progressed past the days of the British Raj. We have always known about this for many many years. Ariticles come and articles go, conferences come and make interesting noises about supporting whistleblowers but the system defaults to the status quo.The BMA has always worked to discourage whistleblowers bar their chosen ones - who are usually - senior caucasian doctors.

The BMA and the BMJ are the establishment. They are hardly going to argue on issues contrary to the establishment's interests. 

Finally, the reason some of us blog online is because the BMJ would never publish the above :). It doesn't follow English establishment etiquette to point at the problems in a very direct manner. We should of course dedicate this piece to the bald dinosaur Tony Delamothe. One has to pity the old fool who is clearly stuck in his ivory tower banning all Rapid Responses from asian whistleblowers but accepting petty ex criminals like Penny Mellor instead. No accounting for taste there really. Perhaps Mellor will be kind enough to polish his bald head.