Thankyou to Andrew Mitchell MP of the Conservatives

After a number of years, Andrew Mitchell has finally come up trumps. He has taken the bull by the horns on the issue of the compulsory recording of the death rate on NHS Wards. He has approached Ben Bradshaw on the relevant issues. Ben has failed to come up with the research to back up his decision not to record death rates in the NHS.

Moreover, Andrew Mitchell has been fantastic in referring a number of matters concerning whistleblowing. We are all extremely pleased with his efforts. So, a big thankyou from me and all my whistleblowing colleagues. I may have gone grey waiting but at least this gives us all hope that after a decade, some things are possible. In any case, there is always Loreal.

The actions so far show that the Conservatives have a great deal more insight than the lying scheming fat toads at the Labour Party.

Conservatives and Whistleblowers

Conservatives and whistleblowers. I have no idea whether they go together.

The Midlands newspapers featured the following article

"Every NHS worker will have a legal right to speak out if hospitals are failing their patients, under Conservative proposals. Shadow health minister Andrew Lansley announced plans to give staff the right to report concerns to the official health watchdog, as he visited Stafford hospital. He said fear of speaking out had allowed problems at Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust to continue"

We won't count the number my emails and letters the Conservatives have not responded to. Nevertheless, they should be applauded for their insight in recognizing that whistleblowers do not have free speech.

Jobbing Doctor's Pulse

The Very Sexy Jobbing Doctor.

Jobbing Doctor is becoming a bit of a star on Pulse. I love his writing as everyone knows and he is the best rep for all of us intemperate beings whose style isn't suited to such publications.

JD wrote the following about why doctors did not whistleblow against Mid Staffs.

I should correct the following material slightly [if infact he refers to me although I do apologize if that wasn't the case]. JD writes :-

"I'll tell you why. Because those who have acted as whistleblowers in the past have seen their careers wrecked, that’s why. One brave doctor reported a neighbouring trust and as a result was reported to the GMC, was suspended, had allegations about her mental health raised and since then has scarcely worked. Another had to move to the other side of the world to be able to work"

Few corrections here :-

1. I wasn't reported to the GMC. I raised concerns with the GMC in the year 2000. They took up an investigation without a complaint and conducted a discreet inquiry for 2 years. It was essentially a illegal non procedural inquiry. In R v General Medical Council Ex Parte Powell, the GMC argued that a complaint could not be taken up without a formal complaint. Well, we know about Mark Shaw QC don't we, tilts with the stormy seas of the law. I am surprised he doesn't get sea sick.

Anyhow, this is what the General Medical Council did :-

"Despite the above, the General Medical Council refused to investigate the issues. They did though say as follows on Page 4 of the document 1st July 2004 Ref EMP/199/ZRA. This document was written by a lawyer by the name of Zahidar Ramzan Asghar :-

On behalf of her client Professor Griffiths she wrote

" Our client was asked by the General Medical Council as to why the Complainant might have made these allegations and whether our client thought that the General Medical Council should proceed against the complainant for making what appeared to be accusations in an unprofessional manner"

2. I have never been suspended from the GMC Register or any employment. There has never been any sanctions against me. Hard to believe but true :)

3. I did infact work between 1999-2007 - in General Medicine initially then in psychiatry. The jobs were mostly long term/short locums and was an affiliate member of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. That was until I was fired from Worcestershire Mental Health Trust in 2007 due to the continuing harassment by the GMC which has continued now since the year 2000.

4. I have been subjected to 3 complaints. All complaints were by oddballs who clearly had nothing better to do. They were all related to my written work. I have had no patient complaints or complaints from Trusts.

a. 2000 - the GMC instigated a complaint all on their own. They called it a "discreet inquiry.

b. 2003. The GMC instigated a complaint made by Dr Tim Woodman and his colleagues on Doctors.net.uk. It was regarding "defamation". The GMC later admitted in correspondence dated 2007 that they could not try defamation. Nevertheless, I was subjected to 6 months of investigation. This was due to the fact I had instigated litigation against the GMC which was subsequently won in the first application then settled. The complaint was taken up by the GMC to dissuade me from litigation. It didn't work because I reversed the complaint on Woodman and was cleared.

c. 2007. Complaint made by Penny Mellor and Fiona Woolard due to my undercover work on the David Southall case. Instigated by the GMC because I threatened to judicially review their decision in the Professor Griffiths complaint [ listed above] during that time. The two allegations were that I linked to a public document and that I called myself a "psychiatrist" without being on the specialist register. Due to the instigation of the complaint, I was fired from Worcestershire Mental Health Trust. The GMC were to amusingly call a number of doctors "Psychiatrists" [who were not on the specialist register] in their Press Releases. Indeed, their own barrister called me a "psychiatrist". I was cleared in September 2007 after nearly six months of investigation. The case examiners ruled that I could call myself a psychiatrist. The complaint arose because Penny Mellor has a total lack of understanding about medical matters. The matter was subject to a judicial review for which we won permission in 2008.

I am currently administratively erased from the GMC Register. There are many rumours about this but none of them are true.

Therefore, I should reiterate that I have never had any sanction against me from the GMC. I don't know where JD got that idea but I suspect there are various rumours from suspension to being struck off circulating around. It is probably because no one takes the time to read the chronology or perhaps I talk about the GMC so much that people by default feel they must have sanctioned me.

I do though have a ruined Fitness to Practise record, a collection of complaints made by the half crazed Doctors.net.uk posters [which I recently discovered] and the half baked Penny Mellor that were never taken up by the GMC. Nevertheless, I trust these people will be blocked by the vexatious complaints policy on Rule 4. I now have the entire collection which is a bit like a Imelda Markos collection really. Fools often rush in and never actually take their time to understand what they do. This Fitness to Practise record will remain for the term of my natural life. I trust that makes all those interested parties with a vendetta happy.

I think the worst the GMC can say is that I was guilty of writing :) material contrary to the vested interests of the medical establishment.

In conclusion, I should say that the NHS gets the doctors it fights for. It didn't fight for me therefore it is essentially their loss. There maybe a certain sense of arrogance regarding that but there we go. Cest la vie - failing systems often have no insight. That isn't my concern at anymore - because I essentially did my job as a doctor and following the closure of Ward 87 in 2005 which I instigated, I have probably saved many thousands of people. Despite the consistant lack of support from the medical fraternity, I can now say - that I was right and they were wrong - and now none of them have anything to say. They all sit their in silence. While, the GMC has effectively terminated my working life, I think in the last decade I have done more than many doctors do in their entire working life. My working life was a lot longer than expected for a whistle blowing junior doctor. And that is the end of whistleblowing decade where one request for a drip set magnified into an attack on health policy, subsequent backlash on a whistleblower through the Trust and the GMC, endless litigation to clear the smears and finally the evidence that I was correct all along. Is North Staffordshire NHS Trust about to apologise for the number of people they killed. Of course, not. Are they about to apologise to me or even thank me. Of course, not - that is because wickedness is in their blood, they have an indifference to patient death. During the time of the ward's existence, numerous people died needlessly. We won't know how many because the patient's relatives were never told and the death rates were never calculated or kept.

I hope Pulse or JD will correct the slight error :). I hope they will anyway.

Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust - The Dead Zone.

While I have been quite inert about the ongoings at Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust, I have to say that it didn't surprise me at all. While everyone else has been running around excited, I have known about this Trust for sometime. It was the neighbouring Trust to North Staffordshire NHS Trust afterall. Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust was offered Foundation Status and North Staffordshire NHS Trust was offered University status. They both concealed their high death rates and their substandard services in order to obtain this status.

The Guardian quotes Sir Ian

"Sir Ian Kennedy, the commission's chairman, said: "This is a story of appalling standards of care and chaotic systems for looking after patients. Those are words I have not previously used in any report. There were inadequacies at almost every stage in the care of emergency patients. There is no doubt that patients will have suffered and some of them will have died as a result."

When Sir Ian was told about the issues on Ward 87, he ignored it. Indeed, until very recently, the Health Commission had no system for whistleblowers to report patient neglect.

From: <Howard.Davis@healthcarecommission.org.uk>

To: <drrita.pal@virgin.net>

Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 5:59 PM

Subject: Healthcare Commission

Dear Dr Pal,

Thank you for your Email which I read yesterday. I was sorry to read ofyour experiences.The Healthcare Commission's complaints remit derives from the NHS (Complaints) Regulations 2004. The regulations are primarily focused on patients, the family and friends and ther public. The issues you raise would appear to be in the context of your employment and so would likely be outwith the complaints remit. At the same time I note that it might be that you are seeking to bring your concerns to the attention wider HealthcareCommission. With this in mind, I have forwarded your Email to the Commission's Serious Service Failures and Investigations branch.
I hope this is helpful.


Howard Davis - Team Leader
Complaints
Healthcare Commission
> Peter House
> 5th Floor, Oxford Street
> Manchester
> M1 5AN
........................................

Thanks Sir Ian. So much for your post Bristol Inquiry systems! And if Sir Ian wants to read Steve Bolsin's report on Ward 87, here it is. The summary of the information is below this post. It should be noted that Sir Ian did nothing to investigate the wider data of the patients on that and other wards at North Staffordshire NHS Trust.

In the year 1999, I warned that the hospitals in the Midlands were ending patients lives needlessly. The Birmingham papers featured the issue. The Department of Health took no action at the time. A letter to Frank Dobson which exists from me to the Department of Health and the General Medical Council was never responded to. When the various issues were reported to the General Medical Council, the Department of Health tells us that the GMC asked whether I should be investigated for unprofessional allegations. During that time period Professor Rod Griffiths was in charge of the area. He did nothing. And that is why you see the status we have now.

Patient deaths were only noticed at Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust because the patients raised the issue. If they had not, the patients would continue to die. The other matter remains that death rate was only recorded when complaints were made. Otherwise, the matter would never have been monitored or noted. The Department of Health has already confirmed that recording death rates is not compulsory. Indeed, Ben Bradshaw tells us that death rate should not be recorded because it is " unreliable". Of course, Ben Bradshaw is full of more hot air than Richard Branson's balloon. Alan Johnson's fake apology today was laughable. Perhaps he should tell us how many patients are dying in the area - actually lets widen it - how many patients are dying in the NHS.

The media have got excited of course. I don't blame them. Shame their stories were consistently neglected for the last 8 years. Perhaps the media could have prevented some deaths. Of course, we can be sure that the death toll is about 4 times that quoted by the Health Commission.

Evidence

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"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

In May 1999, the Medical Division received an Adverse Incident Form from Ward 87 which identified a malfunction of a defibrillator used during resuscitation. A two stage investigation was began.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.”

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. 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.”

3. 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".

Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust was never as Bad as North Staffordshire NHS Trust

So here are the reports for Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust.

Here is the report from the Health Commission.

Of course, none of it was as bad as its neighbour, the rogue North Staffordshire NHS Trust. There were so many deaths, they simply shut me up from the media in the year 2000. Don't believe me? Just ask the Department of Health. They shut Ward 87 to cover up the deaths. We know they did, they know they did. To date no one has investigated the broader data of Ward 87 or related wards. I am very grateful to my blogging colleagues who have had the guts to link to the evidence of Ward 87. The rest of the media seem to be rather cowardly. No skin of my nose of course. You get the service you fight for.

Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust tells us all that patient power can achieve everything, the word of a doctor is valued as nothing. I am sick and tired of the Health Commission and the NHS Ombudsman. I have nothing more to say on this aspect.

GMC Legal Roulette

The General Medical Council can be called a thief. According to the Theft Act, the following definition is provided.

— (1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.

I actually do not have the time to blog but I am here at about 5 am in the morning examining the concepts of theft of a doctors career by the General Medical Council. Anyone who works for the General Medical Council engages in the behavior of intentionally depriving a doctor of their livelihood.

Yesterday, a surgical junior doctor met the GMC legal team in court. They had come well prepared. No doubt Mark Shaw QC went for his £500 trip to the boys room [ plus VAT] and no doubt Lesley Morgan and Paul Hylton neatly prepared the GMC bundles, courtesy of GMC subscription fees. QC time is expensive and no one questions that. Time is money and money is time.

Apparently, the GMC's costs were about £18,000 but they were prepared to be civil and plant a large amount of £4000 plus VAT on the head of the junior doctor yesterday. Apparently, they were being kind. Of course, those of us who are seasoned GMC observers know that the GMC does not roll out Mark Shaw QC unless they are in the shit. It is Shaw who pulls them out using his debonair good looks and his dastardly charm. It is often amazing what you can do with a good Saville Row suit although I have no idea whether Shaw wears such things but he should. A good devouring of a junior doctor is done with Chianti and a Saville Row suit. He should know that by now.

I suspect that £4000 plus VAT must have felt like a trickle of kindness from Mark Shaw QC. Something he can do to a person he perceives as a beggar. Because he no doubt perceives all doctors as beggars because they beg for the return of their livelihood from him. He can stand there in all his powers and look down on us mortals. He can judge us with his own brand of justice. He can say that disclosing all complaints to every employer in the land on the doctors CV is justice. Nothing like this happens to any other profession.

As I expected, the team flattened the daylights out of the surgical junior doctor but we have some learning points from this escapade. We learned that they flatten doctors for a living, we learned that what Mark Shaw QC says, the courts believe without question, we learned that Mark Shaw QC can look upon a violation of human rights and simply walk away.

We learned that Mark Shaw QC can justify why not to take action against doctors guilty of forgery, fraud, deception, negligence and killing a small boy called Robbie Powell but he argues why a doctor who wrote intemperate emails to the Royal College of Surgeons should be left with a warning on his record. In Shaw's world, a doctor who writes intemperate emails is worth sanctioning but doctors who have killed a patient aren't worth sanctioning. Let us therefore see who Mark Shaw QC protected . Perhaps Mark Shaw QC calls that " protecting patients".

" We also found that there was some evidence that the GP's medical notes had been altered, sufficient to prosecute certain individuals for offences of forgery and perverting the course of justice. However we concluded that it was no longer in the public interest to prosecute those offences because of the passage of time and earlier CPS decisions"

" The medical evidence does suggest negligence in the treatment given by Dr Michael Williams on the 11 April. Dr Williams position is made worse by the fact he had the medical notes in front of him and had read the letter from Dr Forbes, which specifically raised the possibility of adrenal insufficiency. The contents of Dr Williams referral letter suggest he was aware after Robbie had died that he had made a mistake and should have picked up the signs of the condition. Although the decision to refer was correct, the failure to refer immediately was a bad mistake but not such as to allow us to prove manslaughter to the criminal standard. There would also be problems in proving that Dr William's negligence was a substantial cause of death because of the cumulative subsequent negligence of Drs Boladz, Hughes and Flower. We concluded that any prosecution of Dr Williams for manslaughter would fail"

"The key aspects of Dr Boladz's examination on the 15th April appear to be the fact that Robbie was too weak to walk unaided, he had been unwell for some days and was showing obvious signs of weight loss. He therefore should have made an immediate referral to hospital and there is no doubt that such a referral would have saved Robbie's life. We have concluded that Dr Boladz should have recognised signs of dehydration. From the medical reports, this appears to be the key factor in determining whether Dr Boladz should have recognised Robbie was so seriously ill and that he needed immediate hospitalisation. The medical opinions do not establish this point sufficiently, to prove that the risk of death was so obvious at this time to enable us to successfully prosecute Dr Bloladz for manslaughter. The case for manslaugher against Keigh Hughes runs into much the same difficulties. On the 16th April Robbie was closer to death and it may be presumed that the signs of dehydration would have been more apparent than they had been for Dr Boladz, The evidence suggests that Dr Hughes failure to make an emergency referral was negligent. Robbie would have survived if admitted to hospital at this point and we can therefore argue that Dr Hughes negligence was a substantial cause of death. The key issue there was whether there was a obvious risk to death that should have been recognised by any competent GP......

"There is evidential basis for saying that Dr Nicola Flower was grossly negligent in her management of Robbie's illness on 17th April. It is the case for both the 3.30pm and the 5.30pm consultations. At both times the proper course of action was an emergency referral to the hospital and there was clear evidence to suggest that the risk of Robbie dying would have been obvious to any reasonably competent general practitioner. We reached this conclusion, not by assuming that Dr Flower should have recognised Addison's disease, but because she failed to recognise a seriously ill child who needed immediate hospitalisation. Having reached this conclusion, we then considered the issue of causation. We looked to determine whether we could prove that Robbie would have survived as an emergency after either consultation. If we were able to do so then we cold establish the causal link between Dr Flower's gross negligence and Robbie's death"

Of course, Shaw QC would play with his words and tell us all that he is a lawyer and he believes in justice and he knows the law .

We are all told to apologise if anything goes wrong or even if anything doesn't go wrong. In this surgical junior doctors case, two lawyers coaxed an apology to the General Medical Council implying that matters would get better for him. Having coaxed the apology, they took their money and disappeared into the sunset. Yesterday, the only argument the General Medical Council had on justifying a warning on this doctors registration was the fact that he had apologized. So, an apology according to the GMC's legal team was an admission of so called guilt and this apology gave them the right to violate a person's Article 10 [HRA] human rights. And there we have it, that is the price of an apology.

Dr Scot Jnr was nearly taken down by his own misguided apology. Dr Shrine Boardman decided to apologise as well. Morally this may be the correct thing to do but the General Medical Council sees it as an admission of guilt. That is what the case yesterday told us all.

The argument that is haunting Mark Shaw QC at the moment is whether a complaint can be taken up without a complainant. In R v GMC Ex Parte Powell he argued that a complaint could not be taken up without a complainant. Yesterday, he appeared to argue that a complaint can be taken up in the new rules but not the old rules. Then he has a minor problem of the fact that in Pal v GMC 2004, during the old rules, a complaint was taken up without a complainant.

So let us have a look at the old rules to see if Mark Shaw QC is right.

Here is the link to the pre 2004 rules.

6.—(1) Where a complaint in writing or information in writing is received by the Registrar and it appears to him that a question arises whether conduct of a practitioner constitutes serious professional misconduct the Registrar shall submit the matter to a medical screener.

And there we have it " information in writing" is of course not necessarily a formal complaint by a complainant. Mr Shaw provides no reason as to why the old rules or the new rules should be any different :). It just is because Mark Shaw says so.

I am therefore quite amused to see which direction Mr Shaw is planning on jumping at the next case which pins him down to this point. Surely, the GMC are being consistent?! Aren't they? :) Or do they argue whatever is convenient to them at the time and hope the world does not notice.

So, the surgical junior doctors livelihood is intentionally deprived. Doctors who lied, forged, killed continue to practise medicine without a warning.

To the General Medical Council, a series of ratty emails is far more dangerous to the public than killing a patient. That was the conclusion of the case [permission to refuse a judicial review of a warning] yesterday. This is what doctors pay the GMC for.

I find this fascinating, don't you?

The Spanish Inquisition

General Medical Council's Legal Team

" Fear, surprise, ruthless inefficiency"
Head Cardinal - Mark Shaw QC :)

The most interesting thing about doing what I do is observing the General Medical Council's legal team from afar. They amuse me greatly. Indeed, their activities are much like a Spanish Inquisition. Perhaps there are a number of Cardinal Fangs but it is rather fascinating that at present the General Medical Council is paying top Queens Counsel rates to fight against a number of Litigants in Persons [ who are doctors]. Mark Shaw QC appears to be a busy man. Rumour has it that his rates are £10,000 per day. Yes, we all choke at that figure but then Mark Shaw QC is good at what he does - arguing one argument in one GMC case and then arguing completely the opposite in another. If anyone wants to go Mark Shaw QC spotting, please do. I suspect he lives at the Royal Courts of Justice and probably doesn't have any qualms in ambushing his opponents. We are due to place Mark Shaw QC's cost schedules in many cases online soon.

A classic example is the case of Robbie Powell where he argued the opposite of what he has argued in other cases. He argued that Robbie Powell's case could not be investigated without a complaint or complainant. In a recent case, despite the fact the complainant withdrew the complaint in a surgeon's case, Shaw insists the GMC can take action without a complaint . Indeed, in this case, the GMC placed a warning on the doctors record despite the fact they didn't have a complaint [ or that in this case it had been withdrawn]. Does this mean the GMC acts one way in one case and completely the other way in others? Is Mark Shaw QC telling us that the GMC does not have to be consistent? Or are we just noticing the ways of Mark Shaw QC.

Fascinating, I thought. Mark Shaw QC was also famous in backing out last minute to Arpad Toth's case against the GMC a few years ago and the case only saw the light of day because Mary O Rourke QC wanted to put her case forward. The convenient thing about running NHS Exposed is that we have a lot of doctors emailing us the fascinating antics of Mark Shaw QC. Indeed, he is rather a interesting creature. Handsomely paid by all the blood, sweat and guts of hard working doctors who have no idea what Shaw does in their name. We must tell the world that Shaw is from Blackstone Chambers. It carries out a great deal of GMC prosecution work. Blackstones essentially protects the General Medical Council and no doubt overlooks all the violations of human rights committed by the GMC.

When I was against the General Medical Council has a litigant in person in 2004, I was ambushed with large numbers of documents all delivered last minute ie the night before. The two files they had apparently sent didn't even get to me until 2 days after the hearing. By then, I had successfully fought the judge and the opposition to adjourn the hearing. The GMC at the time advised the judge that we should keep going despite the fact that I did not receive the two bundles. So, Jane Collier and the Judge discussed matters between them but I was lucky, on this occasion, the judge had no alternative but to adjourn. For the privilege of winning my application, he slapped £2500 on me as costs. I paid that money then whipped it back from the GMC in a later hearing.

At the time it was a bit like a storm of paper flying everywhere - by fax and by email. I was bombarded to wrong foot me. This is a classical tactic the General Medical Council uses. They ambush you with miles of paperwork and expect you not to know your rights as a litigant in person. I do remember that Blackstone Chambers who is currently fighting on a number of human rights cases - told the court that I couldn't afford legal advisers so there was no point in waiting for me to get them. The following month the European Courts ruled that a lack of legal advice was a breach of Article 6. Blackstone Chambers also walked over to me in the guise of Jane Collier to offer me pages of Gatley on Libel. We told her we had already read the book. I suspect that startled her. In the year 2004, I was green, I was also naive but I had one thing going for me - I was bloody brave and I would do things that I couldn't even contemplate now. Even to this day, my relatives wonder how I pulled the adjournment off. I have no idea myself, it was just observation, learning to time things properly and knowing your fundamental rights. I suppose, in the end, I didn't let go - despite Collier's plan to ambush me with words. I might have respected her more if she had played a straight game. The GMC don't play straight, they always have to use their little tactics of ambush.

Well, one thing you have to hand over to the legal team at GMC Towers, in the case they have against a surgeon this weekend, they may win but we are all going to laugh at them later in the year. Afterall, mocking and parody is best served cold. This surgeon has frazzled the General Medical Council, they have hired two solicitors and one Queens Counsel against him. The team has victimised the doctor by instigating further frivolous complaints against him. One through their organisation of common purpose NCAS where his qualified documentation to their lawyers was used as further evidence of so called misconduct. This tells us all that the GMC won't even allow you to fight your corner without pouncing on you at every stage. So, you write a letter to a solicitor, and they take that letter and use it as supposed misconduct despite their guidance on free speech.

We have seen this interesting tactic as it was played on me in 2004, when I was due for a hearing, the General Medical Council commenced a frivolous complaint about me on material I had written on the internet. They dropped it a month after the judgment in 2004. By using their procedures as an instrument of victimisation, the General Medical Council is able to dissuade anyone from challenging them. Their aim is also to develop a finding of some sort to undermine the doctors original case. So essentially, if they say " Dr X is being investigated", the court will have the impression that the doctor is far from innocent. This is rather a clever tactic but we all know it exists. The Registrar who instigated the complaint in 2004, also amazingly instigated the complained dated 2007 during a challenge against Professor Rod Griffiths. The timing is just interesting - a bit like a tango. So in summary, the GMC commences an investigation during litigation. This phenomena has been seen in many doctors.

So yes, challenging the General Medical Council is an interesting escapade. Not many juniors do it because of the tactics used by the Council.

All we can say of the General Medical Council is this - we all know your game and now it is a spectator sport. Is anyone going to read this post, of course they are :). They are going to read it in the future as well.

Related link

Dr Crippen. How the GMC Spends Our Money.

44 Hallam Street. Nightmare on Hallam Street

The Irish Times reports the transformation of 44 Hallam Street. 44 Hallam Street was affectionately dubbed Nightmare on Hallam Street by many doctors.

"No 44 Hallam Street was used by the GMC to hold hearings, in addition to those held in Euston Road and Manchester. Historically it also housed administrative functions and was the only location where hearings were held until late 2001. The GMC finally moved out in December 2006"

Field Fisher Waterhouse, the GMC's well paid rather fat lawyers know only too well where the skeletons are. The bizarre incompetence exhibited by the GMC can only have reached its dysfunctional heights because the organisation remained unaccountable for many years. The madness of the General Medical Council is truly astounding, of course you have to see it to believe it. Those who have seen it with their own eyes understand that doctors have died needlessly within the procedures. Guilty doctors have not been given fair trials, innocent doctors have been fitted up but because these people are doctors, the public pays little attention to the daily violations of human rights that have taken place. Dr India writes of his Nightmare on Hallam Street.

I have no idea why anyone would wish to attend the GMC's local graveyard but perhaps I don't like dancing on doctors graves as they do.

SOUTHPORT CARES FOR CHILDREN

Today, I was asked to join Southport Cares For Children. This campaign has been spearheaded by the excellent and dynamic child health campaigner Cath Regan. The area is sadly represented by John Pugh MP of the Liberal Democrats. Cath and John have often been at loggerheads. This is because John Pugh is a large twit and Cath Regan talks sense.

It is of course time the Liberal Democrats resigned from office because they really do not serve any constructive purpose in Southport. Time to let Cath Regan take over. She has the brains to achieve the best care for Southport. The Liberal Democrats are currently sharing one brain cell between them. That must be difficult for John Pugh who never likes sharing anyway.

John Pugh MP is otherwise known as Mr Crinkle Chops. He states "Moving Southport forward". Actually, he has taken Southport and put it back into the dark ages. He has stooped to the lower depths than the best lizards in the cesspit and undermined/insulted and character assassinated the opposition. This is therefore a taste of his own medicine. Pugh has done nothing for the community since he was elected. He has tried to look pretty but when you are a Lib Dem, looking pretty is often impossible because they need more makeup than the average Salford Bint.

Brenda Porter PPC (the hardworking lady who is set to take away Mr Crinkly's job at the next election) and Margaret Brown, CARES Co Chair, are also opposing Lib Dem apathy in Southport and have been doing so since the NHS stole our services.

I have backed the above campaign since 2004. I must say it is the best executed campaign I have come across so far. No other campaign has been as long and sustained. They run a fantastic pressure group that has been very effective. Their website says

"Our campaign started when the NHS Trust decided to relocate our vital services for children and pregnant women to Ormskirk. This unbelievable decision is we believe totally unacceptable, highly dangerous to the patients involved and distressing to families in general. Southport is a large town built on the holiday industry which urgently needs these essential hospital services for visitors as well as the residents herein"

And that is what they did. They continued to fight for what they believed in. They have continued to campaign for the rights of patients who have been failed by the system. This is the latest.

I made my point that I am no longer a GMC Registered doctor. Pat Regan was very kind to me and said

"You are more a real doctor that 90 % of the pathetic jerks that I come across in this town alone with or without GMC say so.

So I guess I am in :) and am honoured to have been invited. I hope to assist in campaign and contribute the medical knowledge I have.

As for John Pugh MP and Tony Dawson - I can out argue both of you - any day and any time and on any subject. And it is very very true, I back Cath Regan 100 percent, always have and always will.

Dr Peter Jeffreys, Labour Member, GMC Henchman. Please can you resign.

GMC Panellist. Doing It Stalin's Way

It is a dark day in GMC Towers when their human rights abuses are not so secret anymore. Grame Catto moaned about bloggers but of course it is the bloggers that will raise these human rights abuses and not the media.

Here is a blog well written by Dr Helen Bright, Consultant Psychiatrist. We would all like to know what happened to Dr Helen Bright at the General Medical Council. I was shocked to hear the farce the GMC termed a "Hearing". In my view, we should all place the transcripts up online and see what the GMC has been up to. We would also like to know who was drinking large quantities of alcohol on the panel. There are terrible tales of GMC panelists in general. One doctor reported that the panel had wanted to go and watch television. Others have reported that panelists fall asleep. What we really want to know is this - what is the true extent of human rights abuses within the General Medical Council.

This isn't the first time the General Medical Council has fitted up doctors. The actual problems about fitting doctors up is the curious nature of the behavior patterns exhibited by the General Medical Council officials. It is a form of institutional dysfunctional behavior, much like a child who has never been held accountable or admonished.

So are we all just bad doctors or is the GMC unable to function in a fair and transparent way. Of course, Graeme Catto cannot avoid responsibility for all these cases. He may turn a blind eye but one day someone in the right places will ask the question " Why did you not raise the alarm Professor Catto"? Is it your ethical and moral duty to raise the alarm when an organisation is harming people. Are you always going to sit silently and say nothing? How bad does it have to get before someone says something? Do we have to hear about another Debra Shepherd who committed suicide following a GMC investigation?

While Helen Bright is admonished by the General Medical Council, what of Robbie Powell's doctors. Robbie Powell's doctors have lied, cheated and ended the life of a little boy, there are no alert letters on them, there has never been a suspension and they have continued quite happily. So why are they able to practise quite happily and Dr Bright isn't able to work freely? Can Finlay Scott answer that question?

In the case of Helen Bright, it seems that the creepy man at the centre of the story is a GMC-ite called Peter Jeffreys. Jeffreys has sat on many panels at the GMC. Here he is providing his own particular brand of justice. Here he is again. He was also the Medical Director where Helen Bright worked. In fact he was instrumental in reporting her to the GMC. There are many instances where Jeffreys is paid very well to be a henchman in the employment of GMC Towers. Here is his entry

"Consultant, Psychiatry of Old Age (Northwick Park Hospital - employer CNWL Mental Health NHS Trust). On specialist register for Old Age Psychiatry and General Psychiatry. Member BGS (British Geriatrics Society); MDU : Labour Party; Alzheimer's Society; MIND. Fellow RCP (London); Fellow RC Psychiatrists. Chair London S12 (Mental Health Act 1983) Approval Panel. Lay Partner Health Professions Council. Second Opinion Appointed Doctor : Mental Health Act Commission. Medical Advisor Harrington Horticultural Training Scheme, London N6"

So, Mr Creep serves on the Medical Defence Union, is a member of the Labour Party and influences all sorts of things. The GMC gives him the power to violate the rights of doctors by vindictively reporting them to the GMC on frivolous charges.

The Times reported as follows

"Dr Bright also swore at Peter Jefferys, her medical director, during disciplinary proceedings which ended in her dismissal. She then threatened to sue Dr Jefferys for £2 million if he did not amend a job reference which referred to the incident with the nun"

So does that mean, if we all tell Peter Jeffreys to F off out of the General Medical Council, he is going to discipline us? So lets try that again, Dr Jeffreys, we think your ability to conduct yourself in a rational and logical manner is impaired. In our view, you also have an attitudinal problem and an inability to recognise your own flaws. The GMC should fire you forthwith. Hows that? Oh, and while we are at it can we call you the henchman of the totalitarian regime or you may prefer the term Despot. Actually, I prefer the terms " A Grubby Little Despot". Clearly all this power has got to Peter's head. No doubt he is skulking around trying to report more doctors to the GMC.

Someone should complain about Peter to the General Medical Council.

For avoidance of doubt, Helen Bright has no mental illness.