Lansley's Cosmetics

No substance beyond Lansley's Cosmetics. 

Those of us who are not new to the business of whistleblowing understand that the changes proposed by Andrew Lansley  are essentially a pile of pants. This is the new consultation document. Of course, there is no point in sending your view point in because the Department of Health and Coalition Government have already cherry picked their favourite half wits. These half-wits are largely the British Medical Association and their sheepdog Hamish Mildew. On the patients side, the coalition government have cherry picked the Patients Association. For all of you who don't know, the Patients Association is a barrister aligned with Common Purpose and a Freemason in the form of Sandy Macara. The man who essentially runs some of it is barely out of medical school. Anyhow, these are the advisers to El Gov at present. Oops I forgot Public Concern at Work - whose only concern is to harvest whistleblowers so that their concerns don't see the light of day. They work with the Department of Health [ admitted by Nicholson himself]

It should be noted that when a number of whisteblowers approached David Nicholson and requested a meeting to discuss improvements for whistleblowers, the Department of Health refused to meet with them. The consultation is therefore rather like a party where no one is actually invited. Gate crashers are not welcome of course. 

The changes by Lansley largely concentrate on the employment contract. For whistleblowers, they would still have to seek a remedy in the courts - and that is a lengthy process. The Department of Health has no recognition of the obstacles faced by most whistleblowers. For instance, you aren't a whistleblower unless your concerns have been vindicated. That is a long haul for most people. Before that has been done, anything could happen - you could lose your job, be referred to the GMC, be disciplined etc. Until and unless there is established evidence to your concerns, no one can actually hold the title whistleblower. Of course, we know  that Count Rubin of the GMC once told the world that all concerns in good faith would be accepted. In the same phase of the moon, the GMC prosecuted a doctor for raising vexatious concerns without proper basis. It should also be noted that I was investigated for 2 long years without my knowledge. Despite internal reports that I had already been vindicated, these were not disclosed to me for 5 more years. During that time, the Department of Health and the GMC gleefully mocked me for having "no basis to my concerns". Having done so, I was subjected to revolving door investigations that no one paid much heed to. If this is mentioned to Lansley, he simple ignores it and walks away.The implication here is that I could not command the title "whistleblower" until I obtained the evidence to vindicate myself. In my view, the cultural attitude of the Department of Health, the BMA and all bodies involved in the National Health Service are the biggest threat to patient safety and whistleblowers. They continue to treat whistleblowers with contempt and are largely dismissive of their concerns, recommendations etc.

The suggestions postulated by Lansley are largely ill founded. The reason for this is that the policy makers have failed to understand the main problems involved in whistleblowing. For instance, contractual changes does not prevent the GMC, the NPSA or any other organisation from harassing the whistleblower under the guise of "public interest". Lansley attempts to make it compulsory for health professionals to whistleblow without addressing the fact that organisations like the NMC [ infamous for their disgraceful treatment of Margaret Haywood] and the GMC [ well known for hounding and abusing whistleblowers] have failed to protect whistleblowers. The Medical Act is all supreme. The main mothership is still free to attack any whistleblower - at anytime and any place.

The changes proposed by Lansley are largely cosmetic. To the uninitiated, it will appear that El Gov is being pro-active about whistleblowers. In reality, it is nothing but lip service. This is the government who is reluctant to call a Health Select Committee Review on Whistleblowing with a view to developing proper solutions based on evidence. Perhaps they fear the fact that all the UK's skeletons will fall out of the closet in one go. 

I remain unimpressed with Lansley's proposals.  I also remain unimpressed with the attitude of the Coalition Government who are certainly unilateral decision makers developing policies with their clique. Until the government is ready to develop come kind of communication with ALL whistleblowers, it is unlikely to develop robust policies to protect the whistleblowers. Had these changes been in place in 1998, it would not have protected me. Lansley's problem is that he is listening to the wrong people.

No doubt Lansley wishes to bring these changes in so that he can tell the Mid Staffordshire Inquiry " look, its all changed now". Of course, that is the modus operandi of all organisations. Each year they tell us that circumstances are better for whistleblowers and each year there is another scandal. This is just another one of the establishments manner of pretending that "all will be well" so that there is no scrutiny of the past. Without scutiny of the past, there is no feedback mechanism for improvement. Without a logical approach to the assessment of whistleblowing, Lansley will always be flogging a dead duck.

[ For all those who have asked me - No, I have no intention of contributing to the consultation. The reason for this is because Lansley ignored my last set of suggestions. There is no reason I should waste my time on a government that does not listen and one who continues to mislead the public]