Medical Publications Still Silent on Medical Whistleblowers

Medical Journals - Silent on Whistleblowing

And here we are watching the Royal College of Nursing doing a fabulous job in support of nursing whistleblowers. We then look back to the medical profession and wonder what they have ever done in support of whistleblowers. Bolsin still remains in Australia. No one dares mention Peter Wilmshurst, Mike Tobin or Raj Mattu or the numerous other medical whistleblowers. Indeed, the medical profession have not asked Steve to return back to the UK.

From the RCN, these are the statistics

"Fewer than half (46%) of nurses polled for the RCN felt confident their employer would protect them if they spoke up. Of those who had raised concerns (63% of the total), 49% had filled in patient safety incident forms while others had used different means"

Fewer than one in three (29%) nurses said their employer had taken immediate action to resolve the situation while 35% said no action was ever taken.

The BMJ continues to remain silent on the issue of "medical" [ not nursing] whistleblowers. The General Medical Council remains tight lipped about whistleblowers having slaughtered the likes of Robert Phipps and Shreedar Vaidya through their procedures.

The medical establishment should hold their head in shame. It is a sad day when so much is done for the nursing profession and nothing is done for the medical professionals who have whistleblown. Perhaps a nurses word in the end is of higher value than the doctors word. It appears so anyway.

Yes, and we spotted the Doctors Only website owner, having stuck the knife in Scot Jnr, he decided to ride the tide on the Undercover Nurse publicity. As the Common Purpose Doctors Only website is only too aware, they are quite happy to maliciously report their own medical whistleblowers to the GMC.

I believe the biggest problem with the medical profession is that they have never supported their whistleblowers but have watched them much like a spectacle. A medical whistleblower not only has the management chasing after them but starts to have the entire wrath of the medical profession pitted against them.

The way it works in the medical profession is this - you raise concerns, instead of addressing them, the Trust finds fault in you, then says there are some mental health issues, after that they over scrutinise your work and then forward the matter to NCAS or the General Medical Council. The GMC then ignores any concerns you have about negligence and proceeds to reverse the investigation on the whistleblower [ Phipps, Pal]. Phipps was sanctioned, I wasn't. The medical journals then ignore you, brush you to one side as an "uncomfortable personality" and hope that you will disappear. Most do their utmost to silence any concerns you may have about the system. Any medical whistleblower who has gone through the system, knows I am right. As for the BMA - they are as much use as a jellyfish out of water. The same applies to the MPS and MDU who have both remained silent again on the whistleblowing issues. These organisations assume that by being silent they will infact do themselves a favour and pretend the problem does not exist.

The above is known as the Ostritch effect.

Whistleblower - Riding the Wave.

I had to smirk at the BBC Headlines on Whistleblowers. The Royal College of Nursing are doing their best to fight for the rights of whistleblowing nurses. They stated

"The NHS must help ensure whistle-blowers are listened to and supported, nursing leaders say."

And pray what are our medical mainstream publications doing? Ah yes, they are supporting the nurses as well. I often wonder what happened to supporting medical whistleblowers, and hey there are many of us. But no, it doesn't happen does it! Pulse goes off to support Undercover Nurse when the likes of me says - hey what about doctors - fine, don't support me but there are other doctors out there who need back up. If you looked at the medical publications, you would think that only one whistleblower ever existed since the dawn of time and that was a nurse. The fact that Peter Wilmshurst or Raj Mattu exist does not appear to garner any attention at all.

So there we have it, the BMJ writes next to nothing about medical whistleblowers and Pulse jumps on the proverbial bandwagon and supports Undercover Nurse. Is Undercover Nurse a genuine whistleblower or one created for the media?

Then as for MPs, the BBC goes onto say "The Tories have already called for a new law to allow NHS staff to report concerns "easily and anonymously"

Well, can we get a few facts straight now that the Conservative Party has shown their true colours recently. It was because of David Cameron and Andrew Mitchell that Stafford Hospital happened. They both did nothing when I raised the initial concerns with them many years ago. Of late, I felt they had turned the corner but Andrew Mitchell is still the pompous condescending MP he always was. This week, I really had had enough of his condescending letters written on conqueror paper. To Andrew Mitchell, I am your washed up whistleblower - and he is the one who earns his fat paycheck. Because of that, he can afford not to read documents, get irritated when he does not understand the basics then guffaw away. The biggest problem with Andrew's insight is that he doesn't understand what he has caused by his ignorance. The death of 2000 plus people?

I say this because concerns about Ward 87 were raised with them and all the MPs in Parliament [ and yes, I have all their non responses] about the risks to patients between 1998-2008. I should say that no one was listening. Like all MPs, Andrew Mitchell spends a mint, he is also a arrogant man who is of the view that he can look down on whistleblowers and pretend he is assisting while putting the shutters down. It is damned well insulting when his letters fly through the door writing material he doesn't even understand. Matters have to be explained to him twice.

I came to the point this week where I was ticked off with the lot of these useless MPs. I watch Tony Wright MP creep up to Cure the NHS in Stafford having degraded the issues related to Ward 87. You then watch all the MPs sidle up to Cure the NHS, to share the media spotlight. Amazing what an MP will do to get the limelight and pretend they care about the country's dead. Not one of these MPs cared about the dead on Ward 87. Not one of them have addressed the issues so far. Then there is the empty threat of litigation against the government related to a Public Inquiry into Stafford. Everyone knows its risky and it won't happen.

Anyhow, I believe the problems of medical whistleblowers are under-represented by the general media and the medical media. They are also poorly understood by MPs who have failed miserably and directly allowed poor healthcare to continue. Hospital Doctor did a far better job than the current lot who pretend as if there are no problems in medical regulation or the culture of medicine.

If the truth be known, the culture of medicine has rotted to the core. These days, without Hospital Doctor, they are better at covering it up. I suspect though that most doctors are happy to accept the status quo rather than take the difficult path to change the system. That is of course until their own arse is on fire :).

Mad Hatters Tea Party

Apparently, the Lunatic Fringe Council formally known as the General Medical Council have developed GMC Affiliates. The documentation kindly sent to me by the slightly less disordered individuals there can be downloaded from here.

Put it this way, in short GMC Affiliates are spies for the General Medical Council. I know the Lunatic Fringe Council likes to couch the phrase in different and more acceptable terminology but thats them for you. I am sure they would make a murder look tame. I suppose the GMC Affiliate system would be interesting if it wasn't operated by those best suited to a Mad Hatters Tea Party. I hadn't of course understood the true extent of the dysfunctional behaviour until recently. Sure I had been told about it by a Ex GMC Committee member but what is truly fascinating is that the extent of this personality disordered behaviour is endemic and probably unsafe for many doctors. I shudder at the thought of such crazy people being responsible for handling large amounts of revalidation data.

Anyhow, I am positive the good folk in the NHS will discover very soon how bad things are - that is when revalidation hits the fan and licenses are stopped on a technicality. The fact remains, it is that technicality that expands quite broadly once the GMC catches it. One small issue expands into a spiders web. More often than not the GMC will side with senior medical doctors. A junior doctor only requires one dysfunctional one to ruin their chance of relicensing.

Relicensing is interesting and looks relatively harmless until you look at the potential for Medical Directors to essentially say one word to stop the license from proceeding. Take the example mooted this week by Witchdoctor and NHS Blog Doctor. A busy doctor who is excellent but did not have time to update her "folder". Her consultant was not impressed. Of course, paper doctors is a theory mooted by the GMC. That is how those who talk a lot [ as opposed to work a lot] dictate what good doctors should be. So, no one is assessing your ability to get the patient back from the dead. What is being assessed is how many lectures and CPD points you are able to earn. When I was a junior doctor, I didn't have enough time to breathe never mind sit and complete documentation. As everyone is aware, medicine is practical job - and while theory is important, it is what is done on the shop floor that counts.

Revalidation and appraisal is really about a central "collection of data". In my view, too much data in the hands of the lunatic fringe council is a very bad thing. The GMC misinterprets data on a regular basis and penalises the most vulnerable ie junior doctors.

So, here are the new regulations due in force soon. So any information collected by the GMC can [ if they wish] be disclosed to anyone really

Reference here.

(2) If the licensing authority considers it to be in the public interest to do so, the licensing authority may disclose any relevant information about the medical practitioner to—

(a) the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in Northern Ireland or the Welsh Ministers; and

(b) any person of whom the licensing authority is aware—

(i) by whom the practitioner is employed to provide services in, or in relation to, any area of medicine, or

(ii) with whom the practitioner has an arrangement to provide such services.

2C

"require a medical practitioner or any other person (including another medical practitioner) to provide any evidence, information or document which C may reasonably request for or in connection with revalidation of a medical practitioner"

So, this "any other person" is rather interesting and of course if we are to believe the GMC, "anything can be in connection with revalidation". The other interesting issue admitted in the extract below is that the entitlement of relicensing is conditional upon the applicant's fitness to practise not being impaired. Now, if we are to believe the GMC, anything is now potential misconduct if the GMC wants it to be. To turn the argument upside down, we can see that if someone in their eyes is not " Fit to Practise" then instigating GMC procedures against innocent doctors is going to be fairly easy really.

For instance, if someone dislikes the material written by Dr Rant, NHS Blog Doctor or Jobbing Doctor, they can quite easily report it to the GMC, who will then place it against their revalidation and relicensing record and use that information to judge whether or not the doctors should be relicensed. It now makes it incredibly easy to stop anyone with critical ideas of the NHS - because anything in a doctors life can now stop them from practising. Essentially, the way data is collected at the GMC is this - anyone who enquires about a specific doctor has the enquiry logged under the doctors and their name. If there are any further concerns about the doctor, those enquiries may be reopened and followed up. Essentially, every comment, every allegation made against a doctor [ without the doctors knowledge] is listed against that doctors name on the GMC database. It seems logical that they would use this data for relicensing.

The Mothership has indeed Landed. This is so because no one has taken the time to stop it.

This is further confirmed by the forthcoming 2006 Statutory Instruments [Extracts Quoted Below]

"Entitlement to registration under any provision of the Act is now conditional upon the applicant’s fitness to practise not being impaired. The Registrar is given new, extended powers to obtaininformation about whether a medical practitioner’s fitness to practise is, or was, impaired at the time of registration – and he may remove medical practitioners from the GMC register (subject to rights of appeal) either if new information comes to light showing that their fitness to practise was 36 impaired at the time of registration but this was not disclosed at the time or if a practitioner refuses to co-operate with the new information gathering arrangements. Decisions to refuse to restore a person to the register for a fitness to practise reason, if they left it voluntarily or for non-payment of fees, are now appealable through the courts (Part 5

There are also changes to the fitness to practise procedures for medical practitioners post registration. The GMC are given powers to apply to a court to require production of documents from third parties relating to fitness to practise investigations, where these have not been supplied within fourteen days. It is also made clear that the GMC have the power to disclose information relating to a medical practitioner’s fitness to practise, whenever or wherever the matter to which it relates arose, where they see it as being in the public interest to do so, and to take decisions to disclose particular classes of information. A list is also provided of the decisions of panels and committees that have to be published, although the GMC is given powers to withhold, in the course of publication of these decisions, information concerning a person’s physical or mental health, where they consider the information to be confidential. Allowance is made for the possibility that a medical practitioner will concede, during an investigation into his fitness to practise, that his fitness to practise is impaired – and in these circumstances, the GMC may make rules in respect of the agreement of undertakings to be observed by the practitioner, and in respect of the procedure to be followed where such undertakings are breached. Fitness to practise hearings are to be in public, except to the extent that rules made by the GMC provide otherwise. There is also a change to the arrangements for the making of legal assessors rules (Part 6 and article 91).

"There are also changes to ensure that revalidation of a medical practitioner’s licence to practise can take place at any time, and to allow the GMC to make regulations about requiring medical practitioners to supply information to assist licensing authorities in determining when and how torevalidate them. There are also transitory arrangements enabling the GMC, a licensing authority or a future licensing authority to obtain information to assist them in preparing for the introduction of revalidation. Additionally, licence to practise appeals will have to be held in public, except to the extent that rules provide otherwise (Part 9 and article 90).

And there we are, we can of course thank Lord Walton at the House of Lords. and Baroness Finlay at the House of Lords who debated this Act and new statutes. Walton the ex GMC President is apparently still alive despite being a walking corpse with his brain as frazzled as it always was. Nevertheless, the powers bestowed upon the GMC or the next organisation which will be the GMC in drag staffed by the same people - is quite extensive. They have the power to do whatever they want when they want to whoever they dislike. This kind of power bestowed upon an organisation who is currently being judicially reviewed every week is quite dangerous. Power has already got to the heads of those who work there. Despite probably having one CSE to their name, those who work at the GMC tend to have delusions of grandeur. For instance a consultant recently told me that he had complained that the complaints against him were vexatious and the GMC worker smirked and stated that he " lacked insight". So essentially, largely intellectually inferior workers at the GMC are given superb powers to make prejudicial judgments on doctors. This is currently extremely dangerous.

And all this post Shipman has only happened because those who talk on the Common Purpose Doctors Only website run by old Cyril sit around gassing about pointless issues as opposed to preventing something that is a forthcoming danger. Anyway, as we all say - everyone deserves the system they fight for.

Anyway, as everyone will soon find out appealing a refusal to relicense a doctor is going to be superbly difficult. Indeed, if realism kicks in, a doctor could remain unemployed for months or years while the appeals proceed. This period of unemployment can ruin a junior doctor.

The MMC Fiasco was created by their predecessors who were essentially supine. The Revalidation/relicensing is due to be created because the current doctors are supine. Then perhaps supine doctors deserve what they fight for.

While I am sunning myself on a beach somewhere, I will probably hear the screams in about 1.5 years time.

Dr William Orlando Monteiro.Lying In Court

I am now in a position to respond to the Libertarian blog listed here. It featured the antics of the last Trust I worked at. As everyone will recall, Steve Choong the mean GMC Panellist with dictatorship tendencies decided on colluding with the General Medical Council in the case R v GMC Ex Parte Pal. This collusion wasn't unexpected.

Steve Choong's dirty work was done by Dr Will Monteiro. Will provided a statement to the Royal Courts of Justice signed under a statement of truth for the General Medical Council. He provided no documentary evidence to substantiate his view that I had apparently misinterpreted being "Fired" and it was actually a "Resignation". The reason both parties have fought this issue is because they are both gibbering away due to liability issues.

Will failed to provide a resignation letter and his evidence in court conflicted directly with the documentary evidence [ hard copies]. Nevertheless, the immunity from GMC procedures given to Will and Steve meant that they were both prepared to follow the GMC much like large Pavlov's dogs. In their dislike and hatred for me, what they didn't understand was its impact on the rest of the medical profession :) including them. And this aspect is the most entertaining one to watch. How far will consultants go to shoot a whistleblower down? Well, they will go far enough to take the entire medical profession down with them.

Mark Shaw QC, wealthy barrister for the GMC paraded Monteiro's statement and relied on it :). The statement of course is a selection of manufactured lies. This essentially means that the General Medical Council relied on fibs. They were indeed quite happy to do so. The only conflict of evidence that exists about whether I resigned or was fired is in the mind of the GMC and the Trust. The documentary evidence shows quite clearly that I was fired. There is no debate on this aspect.

Mark Shaw QC knowing very well that his position had become untenable decided to run far away from this topic and exclaimed to the judge that it "wasn't relevant to the point to be assessed". I nearly broke out in laughter following this because it was painful to see a grown man down on his knees after he had sought a 8 week adjournment to rely on this evidence.In his adjournment application, he had guffawed away about how important the resignation/fired point was then deserted it when he was caught with his proverbial pants down. We have to laugh at Mark Shaw QC because he is such a dark minded soul. Some call him the Man with the Heart of Blackstone.

To cut a long story short, Mark Shaw QC having found himself in a huge pit, dug himself further within that pit. Having dug himself further, he decided to withdraw from the point altogether before he fell head first. So after 1.5 years of crowing in court documents about how I had resigned, he decided the point wasn't worth arguing :). To make his side of the fence appear cosmetically robust, he aligned three GMC witnesses [ including Jackie Smith] and Dr Will Monterio to blatantly lie. Apparently, a lie becomes the truth when sprouted from the mouth of a QC. Never seen that effect before but apparently it happens. Of course, Mark Shaw QC doesn't lie, he simply relies on others who do lie. Mark Shaw QC would have read this section of the Perjury Act though

"Every person who aids, abets, counsels, procures, or suborns another person to commit an offence against this Act shall be liable to be proceeded against, indicted, tried and punished as if he were a principal offender"

But we can overlook that as well because no Queens Counsel would purposefully rely on a Lie, would they?

Yes, Dr William Orlando Monteiro in lied in a court of law. That is a fact of life. It isn't my word against his, it is the internal Trust documentation, third party documentation and hard copies that tell us what happened. Monteiro has to be admired for the extent that he is prepared to lie in a court of law. One of these days, he may just be accommodated in his Majesty's wonderful Prisons. Of course, we know he won't be because the GMC will have protected him. They would have to - to rely on a tissue of lies :).

He represented Worcestershire Mental Health Trust and Dr Steve Choong - so I suppose this is all lying by proxy :). I felt that term was apt given the content of the original hapless complaints that were doomed to fail :).

The conclusion from a Employment Chairman [ whose opinion was sought on these matters] is as follows

"In my view, the party which was responsible for terminating the “employment” relationship between Dr Pal and the Trust, was the Trust. That relationship was not one of employment. Notice of that termination was, it seems clear from the evidence to which I refer above, given by the Trust to xxx on 3 May 2007"

More from the tales of Worcestershire Mental Health Trust and the GMC. I am narrating this because it is rather similar to the manner in which all Trusts react when the GMC attempts to devour a doctor. Other episodes will include Mark Shaw QC's faux pais, Jackie Smith's admission that no doctor has to initially inform their Trust of a GMC investigation and other entertaining titbits :). Stay tuned.

As time goes by, the General Medical Council continue to become more and more psychopathic. They perceive that the rest of the world misunderstands them but in reality - no one misunderstands them at all. We all know them to be the tin pot, loony, half baked, corrupt, crazy, bonkers,incompetent organization. It isn't only me that holds that view, its hundreds of people in the UK.

So Funny

Heinous Crime of Linking to a Public Document :)

It is always rather strange to discover FOI requests about me.

Nevertheless, here is one. The hapless William T asks whether I have been subject to any Fitness to Practise Hearing at the GMC in the last 5 years :). Errrm, never have I set foot in that tin pot, dysfunctional, loony, half baked, bonkers, organisation. They can't do me a simple favour by hiring a good looking barrister after all these years. If we all have to put up with Mark Shaw QC again, can the GMC supply a paper bag please. As everyone knows paperbags can have a dual use.

The GMC responds :-

"Thank you for your e-mail of 6 March 2009 in which you ask for details of any [GMC] fitness to practise hearing against Dr Rita Pal in the last 5 years. I can confirm that Dr Rita Pal has not been the subject of any such hearing with the GMC.

Yours sincerely
Mark Ellen"

Exclusion - I actually quite like Mark Ellen and he is not included in the comments above. Mark Ellen is probably the only decent sane guy in the entire building.

I should really say that I have never been subject to a Fitness to Practise hearing.

Foreign doctors

NHS Lawyer assisting

Before Edwin Borman gets out of his crypt to crow about how great foreign doctors are, I thought I would butt in and say a few things online.

Angus Dei is clever. He is also currently featured on the BBC's website. That is because he is suave and writes some cutting edge material. He has also written a piece on the German doctor who managed to kill a 70 year old with a spectacular dose of diamorphine.

Actually, its no different from the Cambridge grad in North Staffordshire NHS Trust who injected a dose of Diamorphine 10 mg into a patient with chronic respiratory problems. The patient snuffed it and was buried. Edward was protected by his consultants and he is now a practising doctor in the NHS. Anyone reporting Edward would probably be struck down dead by the medical establishment because you just don't report Cambridge grads. And that is how no one finds out about errors. Far be it from me to criticise such practises as most people seem to be quite happy with the rates of errors in the NHS.

I don't like to diss foreign doctors but I can but be a little miffed that they are paid substantial amounts of funds to come to this country while British trained doctors like myself and my colleagues are treated shabbily by the establishment/General Medical Council. We must not forget the manner in which the government treated the hundreds of doctors represented by Remedy UK - some of whom are still suffering from the repercussions of the spectacular cock up by the main players in medicine.

I suspect that while many of us are sorry for the death of the 70 year old, we probably all feel that the Department of Health and their pointy heads deserve it. And the errors will continue to happen because establishment does not see that treating their home grown doctors well and encouraging them to work plus improving their working conditions would probably reduce the error rate considerably.

Anyhow, I am sure locums from abroad will continue to be hired by the NHS because they love wasting money and don't really care about patient deaths.

Patient death is dealt with by a pay-out. That is why lawyers now a fixture in the NHS next to untrained foreign doctors.

Hospital Death Rates

Over the year, I have regularly advocated the recording of hospital death rates. Indeed, my MP Andrew Mitchell MP wrote to Ben Bradshaw requesting that death rates be recorded for all wards. The Government though has opted to record " hospital death rates". This persuades the public that this is enough. Of course, those of us who know about statistics also know that without Ward death rates, there is no way of detecting isolated pockets of poor care. Ben Bradshaw does not feel this is required.

So by the time high death rates on a ward is standardized and compared nationally, it would be impossible to detect the location of poor care. If you can't detect it, you can't correct it quickly. If you can't correct it, you end up with a scenario like Mid Staffordshire where the death rate has to be really high in order for it to be detected. Nevertheless, I still find it interesting that Mid Staffordshire has a comparatively lower compensation bill than North Staffordshire.

Peter Carter Ruck. What have you done with the Stafford Whistleblower?

Where is the Staffordshire whistleblower?

Rumour has it that libel law firm Peter Carter Ruck may be representing Stafford Hospital. Apparently, a medical whistleblower was due to raise concerns about the hospital in a prominent Sunday paper but the raptor law firm has been circling around and oddly the story isn't running.

Perhaps Carter Ruck could confirm what is going on and whether they have locked the Staffordshire whistleblower away in the Tower of London.

What are you going to do Peter Carter Ruck? Injunct the entire internet and lock up all the bloggers in the Tower of London as well. And boy do I know about Carter Ruck's toothless, gutless behaviour from the past.

Mcjobbygate. GMC Fishes For Plaice

David Patterson [GMC] Is Fishing

Professor Plaice and I go back almost a decade. Recently, I sent an email to Professor Plaice. [see below]. She wouldn't respond to it of course. I believe in the old days of Hazard County in Stoke on Trent, Professor Paice always suggested that doctors who did not agree with her seek counselling. Indeed, it was her only solution to whistleblowing. These behavior traits have not improved over the years. Indeed, matters have simply worsened. Plaice has persistently bullied junior doctors and abused her powers. Everyone has known that for years and overlooked the problem. This Rogue Dean should actually retire from her post before she continues to embarrass and undermine the medical profession with her dysfunctional behavior.

The Mcjobbygate Scandal has caught Paice in a Spin. She is facing the same fate as she dishes out on many vulnerable junior doctors.

Of course, to Paice, every junior doctor who does not agree with the status quo potentially has a psychological problem. Paice though cannot tell us with complete certainty that she has never approached a mental health professional. Paice's personality issues are now obvious to the world given her oppressive tactics to silence a legitimate critic of the MMC fiasco. Then again, this isn't the first time she has attempted to silence a critic. In her mind, small fry must be controlled. Without control, the establishment cannot rule effectively.

In our mind, rogue deans must be controlled, without control, there will be no accountability.

----- Original Message -----
From: Rita Pal
To: Graeme Catto ; donald@donaldirvine.demon.co.uk
Cc: epaice@londondeanery.ac.uk ; Phil Hammond ; finlayscott@gmc-uk.org
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 4:56 PM
Subject: Private Eye

Prof Catto

Thought you would like the enclosed article. I thought Hammond did a excellent job. I am sure you will to.

I have copied this to Professor Paice who is directly responsible for the ineffective manner in which she managed the situation. It is something she has never apologised for and neither will she. Now that she herself is subject to a GMC investigation, perhaps she will take the advice she gave me at the time, that is to seek counselling. That being her only solution to the deaths of numerous patients.

Of course, Donald Irvine who now campaigns for Mid Staffordshire ironically concealed North Staffordshire NHS Trust and understands the following quote from a Department of Health document " 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"

Regards

Dr Rita Pal

Previously on Mcjobbygate.

Draft allegations for Professor Needham are listed here.

DRAFT ALLEGATIONS BY THE GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL

Professor Elizabeth Paice

C1-220901005
That being registered under the Medical Act 1983 (as amended):

1. In July 2008, you were employed by NHS London and you were also the Post Graduate Dean Director at the London Deanery.

2. On or around 19 July 2008, you reported Dr M, a trainee doctor to Professor Needham, the Post Graduate Dean of the Northern Region Scotland stating that;

a) Dr M had entered a posting on Doctors.net.uk, an internet forum about Dr B, a friend and colleague of yours;
b) you had written to the chair of the Doctors.net.uk Board complaining about the language Dr M used in the posting;
c) you believed that this was evidence of unprofessional behaviour by Dr M;
d) you believed that Dr M may be unwell.

3. Following your complaint, Dr M was subsequently suspended by his employers, NHS Highland, Scotland.

4. On or around 4 September 2008, you made comments to the Inverness Courier Newspaper defending your complaint against Dr M and stated that;

a) there was a point where personal abuse of individuals reaches such viciousness that it became unprofessional;
b) you stated that the GMC guidelines included a section on treating colleagues with respect which Dr M had breached.

5. You knew or ought to have known that the GMC guidelines you quoted in the press article applied to clinical situations which did not apply in Dr M’s case.

6. As a result of your actions in paragraph 2, 3, 4 & 5 above:

a) you used your position to bully a junior doctor who had criticised a friend and colleague of yours;
b) you reacted disproportionately to a posting on an internet forum, that did not concern you;
c) you attempted to curb the free speech of a junior doctor on an internet forum by making your complaint;
d) you knew or ought to have known that your complaint would lead to disciplinary action against Dr M by his employers;
e) you attempted to mislead the public by making reference to the guidelines in the press article that did not apply to your complaint in order to justify your position.

7. Your actions in paragraphs 2, 3 4, 5 & 6 above were:

a) an abuse of your position;
b) inappropriate;
c) irresponsible.

Anna Neill is NEGLIGENT

R v General Medical Council Ex Parte Remedy UK
They Are Going to Win.

Of course, the General Medical Council assumes that I know nothing about the life and times of Anna Neill. The even bigger problem for them is that I do know what she has been up to.

These are the cases Anna Neill has been involved in.

1. R v General Medical Council Ex Parte Remedy UK
2. R v General Medical Council Ex Parte Dr Eswaran
3. R v General Medical Council Ex Parte Pal.

Anna Neill has apparently gone to newer pastures ie according to Neil Marshall, she resigned her post. Coincidentally, it occurred on the week after I reported her to the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The GMC's position varies depending on which way the wind blows. It is rather fascinating watching the events unfold. In Remedy UK's case she failed to pass a complaint supported by more than 1000 doctors. In Eswaran, she failed to pass a complaint concerning the negligent behaviour of doctors and in Pal, she passed a complaint on the stength of a LINK. That is not to mention her previous foray with Woodman v Pal where she conducted complaint on defamation with the GMC later admitting in writing that they had no jurisdiction to try defamation :).

What is even more fascinating from a Race Relations Point of view is that all the doctors complaints she threw out at first stage were caucasian and the one she passed on was British Asian. If she was equal in her thought processes she would have passed all complaints through or thrown all complaints out but she didn't.

I am of course a great supporter of Remedy UK's case against the GMC. I believe it is more of a worthwhile case than any other judicial review. Remedy UK's path has been cleared. I really hope they go onto win because nothing would please me more than to watch some leading case law being made concerning the accountability of those who have harmed so many doctors. I find it highly amusing that the complaint that had 2 verified reports [ Tooke plus Health Select Committee] was rejected at first stage while a complaint regarding a "LINK" was passed through on Stream 1 :). For that inconsistency, the General Medical Council, has no explanation. It amused me greatly to watch the GMC dig themselves into a nice big future hole. I hope Remedy UK get their shovels out and ensure the mud is thrown at the GMC for good. A win is coming to Remedy UK very soon :). What is the GMC's choice now, to conceed defeat to Remedy UK or to be the laughing stock of at the Casino Royal Courts of Justice?

I wonder how much the GMC have spent on the negligence of Anna Neill. All her work seems to "erupt" into litigation. Yes, we know she is incompetent but the GMC does not acknowledge that.

Incidentally, anyone who has subsequently employed Anna should ensure she is fired before they do have to pay out masses of legal fees to defend her negligent conduct. It must be going in its millions by now :). In my view, Anna deserves to be unemployed for the term of her natural life.