Disgraceful

I was reading The Lawyer today over lunch while munching on my ciabatta bread. I found this extract which was quite shocking really :-

"The internal complaints ­system is being undermined by an increasing public ­awareness of cases such as Dr D, which involved a village GP whose career was effectively wrecked by the ­maladministration of a futile complaint surrounding a short ­reprimand by the GP to a patient who had been rude to a nurse.

10-month inquiry followed. Seven years - and a mental breakdown on the part of the GP - later, the Health Ombudsman found that the GP had been the victim of ­”significant injustice” perpetrated by the two ­primary care trusts that dealt with the complaint.

And this is what I mean by the impact of inertia by the medical profession. It takes one minute to fall accidentally into trouble and a decade to sort the problem out. I hope Jobbing Doctor features the above to support his fellow GP. I suspect no manager was held accountable. Nothing new then.

MMC. Skeletons in the Closet

Liam's Date for the Evening

Remedy UK have made some excellent progress in discovering what a malicious, lying, manipulative medical hierarchy we have living at the Department of Health. Nothing new of course. We all knew that ten years ago. Indeed, us older docs were rather surprised that the MMC was even allowed to be implemented despite objections.

Perhaps this new information will act as an incentive to the GMC to exercise their discretion in investigating the conduct of Liam Donaldson and pals. Infact this behaviour is an attitudinal problem that is currently bringing the profession into disrepute and as the GMC will recall acutely, anything can be misconduct these days.

Not only had the crooks failed many juniors before the MMC but they have caused devastation to many of the younger generation of doctors post MMC. Then many doctors simply trusted the powers than be and walked into the disaster head first. It is not as if they had much choice. There are many systems like the MMC in progress. One of them is Revalidation. Much like the advent of the MMC, everyone sat still and watched it happen then discovered the corrupt behaviour only after it was too late. There appears to be one problem with the grass roots medical profession, they are awful at predicting the future but continue to be reactive as opposed to proactive. The same will happen with Revalidation but then everyone is asleep yet again.

Remedy UK does an excellent write up . It is worth a read and I am positive Liam Donaldson isn't feeling well at this point in time. Perhaps he should take up dating skeletons again. After all, he has many rattling in his closet.

House of Lords on Whistleblowing

This is quite hilarious, this is Baroness Llandalf who asks a question in the House of Lords . Baroness Finlay makes some interesting noises for senior doctors. When Andrew Mitchell MP sent her some material relevant to the GMC concerning me, she didn't respond to him for a year or more. What she did do was destroy the documentation and then write to Andrew Mitchell MP to tell him that she had destroyed them.

She was also involved in the development of the new Act that governs doctors. So if it all goes pear shaped we all know who to blame.

Anyway, here are her useless exchanges in Parliament. Lord Darzi sits and crows away about legislation he has no understanding of PIDA does not protect you while you are in employment, the person has to litigate and then win to engage it.

"To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they will take to ensure that whistle-blowing in the NHS is not discouraged by fear of loss of professional registration"

Just to show how useless Darzi is, here is his response.

Lord Darzi of Denham (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health; Labour) | Hansard source

The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA) gives full protection of the law to staff who whistleblow in the public interest and the penalties for those who penalise staff for doing so are potentially very severe. The department has therefore, in light of the Act, made it clear that every National Health Service trust should have in place local policies and procedures that comply with the Act. Decisions on professional registration are made by independent regulatory bodies, not the Government, but we would expect them to make their decisions cognisant of a national context that encourages whistleblowing.

In conclusion, the government allows the regulatory bodies to do what they want.

NHS Whistleblowing. The Debate in Parliament

We should make a note that Andrew Mitchell of the Conservatives did not raise the issue of Whistleblowing in Parliament. He is of course my MP. The person who thankfully did is Richard Taylor of Wyre Forrest.

Ben Bradshaw is often extremely amusing, conveniently brushing away from Ward 87 and pretending it doesn't exist. That OK Ben, we know how embarrassing it is for you to have to admit your Department did nothing when concerns were raised in the year 1999.

The Debate can be accessed here.

"Dr. David Colin-Thomé, the Government's GP tsar, wrote in the introduction to his review of the lessons learned in mid-Staffordshire:

"What has particularly shocked and disappointed me is that no NHS organisations, staff or representatives of the public reported any serious concerns about emergency services in the hospital. Yet patient complaints and patient surveys all pointed to poor care."

Ben Bradshaw - then admits that Public Concern at Work works hand in hand with the Department of Health. As everyone will know there have been phenomenal complaints about the ineffectiveness of PCAW.

"We have also commissioned a charity that specialises in the issue called Public Concern at Work. It provides an independent helpline that is staffed by lawyers with expertise in whistleblowing. That is available to all NHS staff and calls are treated in the utmost confidence"

Ben then goes onto say

"Since the report was published, there have been suggestions that some staff did raise concerns but were not listened to. I urge anyone who has had experience of that or has had it reported to them to bring evidence of such examples forward."

Then

"I hope that I have made it absolutely clear to the hon. Gentleman, both in my general remarks and in what I had to say about the Margaret Haywood and Stafford hospital cases, that the Government fully support whistleblowing. We have provided unprecedented legal protection for those who whistleblow and have emphasized those rights in the new NHS constitution. We will not tolerate management that bullies or discourages whistleblowers. Listening to and acting on the concerns of staff are vital ways to drive up standards and help ensure against poor or unacceptable quality care"

Ben Bradshaw still continues to ignore Ward 87 despite it being brought to his attention a number of times. We wonder why. Perhaps it is another Bradshaw Brain bubble.

Geronticide by Michael Brogden

"The increasing elderly population poses many economic and ethical questions for modern society. One of the most topical and controversial of these is the debate about euthanasia. Drawing on a variety of historical, contemporary, anthropological and literary sources, this book considers the present-day debates about the sanctity of elderly lives and the question of euthanasia. Geronticide: Killing the Elderly seeks to place the current debate in a wider historical and social context, while providing a comprehensive overview of current academic and professional concerns. This thorough, authoritative book will be a useful, thought-provoking read for anyone involved in working with the elderly"

The book can be downloaded from Google UK here.

Page 136 Ref 26 refers to the material I exposed in the Sunday Times 2nd April 2000 in Elderly Helped to Die.Many thanks to Michael for raising the issues related to Ward 87. I am positive the General Medical Council will approve of the fact it has been referenced on a wider scale.

Indeed, as this is the second book to have referenced it, perhaps the next one would kindly request an interview from Finlay Scott at the GMC. He will no doubt support the issue of whistleblowing and will detail how he held doctors responsible for the deaths of the elderly accountable.

F1 Supervision. Why isn't the system improving?

Blood Taking by an F1

I should thank a poster called Amy who informs me that F1 supervision is dire. She posted recently on Dr Crippen correcting my rather super mean diatribe on F1. Perhaps I had forgotten what it was like to be a junior so Amy was quite right in correcting me.

Amy's Post

I am an F1 in a busy teaching hospital.

I an F1's defence we are meant to be supervised and taught throughout our F1year, hence our "preregistration" label.

Unfortunately there is often no one to teach or supervise me and as i wonder round the hospital checking my patient's observations and listening to their chests I am often frightened at how compromised patient care actually is.

Everyone has to learn but how can we if there is no one there to teach us?

Amy

Appropriate supervision has been raised by me since 1998. Indeed, it was one of the issues raised on Ward 87. See point 2 here where Colin Campbell admits to poor supervison.

2002 CHI report into North Staffordshire NHS Trust stated as follows

"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.”

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".

When concerns were first raised in 1999 with the Evening Mail. the Postgraduate Dean, Professor John Temple decided to lie to the public. He stated as follows :-

This is what he told the Evening Mail

Professor John Temple, regional post graduate dean for the West Midlands NHS Executive, says extensive work is being carried out to ensure that junior doctors are properly supervised.

And he adds that while there was a shortage of doctors in the NHS the system was managing to cope "remarkably well".

"Over the last five years one of the things which has changed quite dramatically is that doctors are supervised properly," he says.

"All junior doctors should be supervised and they're required to know who they should contact and how in times of emergencies.

"The world has changed since the times these doctors were left on their own and we're keen to ensure there's a very clear chain of command. We expect them to work as teams, not as individuals."

That was nearly a decade ago. It is therefore quite disturbing to find that F1s even now remain unsupported. Indeed, I was so concerned that I raised with with Prof Catto who assured me that he would send my concerns to the appropriate people so that matters are improved for doctors like Amy. It is also extremely important to raise concerns about poor supervision because only then can it be sorted out. Of course, raising concerns is another issue but I am sure most of the bloggers would be able to help out and ensure the issue is raised in high places without disclosing the identity of the doctor[s]. I think the problem is widespread but we aren't aware of it because doctors are afraid to speak out. I suppose if they GMC were more approachable then that would be one option but they aren't.

My advice to any F1 would be this - never take whole responsibility for a patient. If you are unsure, bleep your senior right up to the consultant. And the whole idea is that no one must be afraid to ask questions. It is better to ask the question rather than be responsible for someone's death. If seniors do not respond, write the bleep number and the time you called in the notes. I suppose when I was a junior doctor, I got so fed up of crap seniors that I simply bleeped any senior oncall. In fact, I believe I even dragged a SHO Dermatologist to supervise my work and forced him to write in the notes before he left. As it happens, in the future the buck stopped with him and not with me as the F1. I think if something goes horribly wrong, seniors are very willing to blame very junior doctors and in some occasions scapegoat them. It is therefore always important to write your notes clearly so it tells the story of what happened that day. Writing in point form with the date/time/signature is fine.

Poor supervision was again raised at Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust.

So who is in charge of this nationally? And what are they doing about it?

Recommended Reading - Diary of a Junior Doctor.

Ku Klux GMC. Setting Your Careers on Fire

The GMC is institutionally racist. Sorry, but this is a fact of life we must accept now. Here is what I wrote earlier this year. In 1999, the statistics were dire.

More recently, the BMJ has a excellent piece regarding the fact we have already known ie that international grads are pinned to the GMC wall and shot.

"The GMC’s 2008 fitness to practise statistics show that when initial complaints were triaged, 44% of those involving international medical graduates (those from outside the UK or Europe) went into the "serious" stream (stream 1, where a full investigation is carried out) compared with only 29% of those involving UK graduates"

This is the GMC who saw the resignation of their racist half witted Registrar Anna Neill once she was reported to the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Anna Neill is of course the Registrar the GMC lied in court for :).

I am a British Indian, I have been taken down Stream 1 twice for matters unrelated to my clinical work. Once for alleged defamation, having put me through a 6 months investigation, two years later the GMC told me in writing that defamation was not considered by them.

The second Stream 1 investigation was regarding a LINK. Both investigations were cleared resulting in the loss of my last job and the discovery that Worcestershire Mental Health Trust's management were madder than the patients there. Stream 1 is admitted to be for the most dangerous doctors yet the GMC admitted in a court of law that I was never a risk to patients. The question then remains, why was I taken down Stream 1 as opposed to Stream 2?

As I have the statistics to back me up - we can simply say that Anna Neill is a racist incompetent idiot, Jackie Smith of the GMC is a fact manipulator and the rest of the GMC is institutionally racist to the core. We know this because they have got more Indian doctors in there procedures than Southall has on its streets. I am surprised they don't hold a samosa party.

The GMC has got themselves maximum immunity though as doctors cannot seek a remedy under the Race Relations Act. I am sure those who have tried to sue will tell you what the GMC have done to block this issue. Due to this, there will be no accountability for the GMC so they can continue pinning asian and foreign doctors [ and those with foreign names] against the wall to shoot them.

The following is stated as if the GMC does not know why more foreign doctors are taken down the steps?

"Despite research looking into the disparity in 2000 and 2005, the GMC is still trying to identify the reasons; the disparity remains despite reforms to the council’s fitness to practise procedures in 2004"

Hey, I have a brilliant idea - I know what the reason is. The reason is this - the GMC itself is racist?! It isn't rocket science :). We just have to look at the manner in which their workers deal with doctors, the statistics and the comparator list. We have to ask the question, why I, Sushant, Tushar, Vaidya, Prabhu, Dr X, SB and many others who have landed in trouble with the GMC are all asian?!

This is while large numbers of caucasian doctors - in the case of Robbie Powell who have lied and killed can get away with it, and even larger numbers of senior doctors who have stuffed up thousands of juniors lives in the MMC can get away with it as well. Essentially, a LINKing to a public document is apparently far more of a heinous crime than ruining the lives of so many junior doctors.

And what do I have to say publicly to the GMC. You f****** bastards. And I can say that because I know that a select few who work there are just that. And I am saying this for all my friends and colleagues who are stuck in the GMC procedures unnecessarily, stuck on the IOP panels and those who are subjected to daily abuses by the GMC. I am saying that for those doctors who can't say it and guess what - I can say it.

And yes, we know the GMC obsessively visits this website every day - thats because they have nothing better to do with their time but be useless, pointless minions with small brains who can't even do their job despite private healthcare. The people who should be subject to fitness to practise procedures are Finlay Scott and his merry men.

Anyway, we won't talk about the doctor at the back of the BNP leaflets that have come through everyone's door. How many doctors were part of the BNP? Ah well, the GMC can't and won't answer that because while BNP doctors have freedom, us asian doctors don't have the freedom to link to public documents or to do anything. I suppose eating a samosa without the consent of the samosa party owner would be misconduct now.

The GMC argues in court that two diametrically opposite decisions on the same facts between a Caucasian and an asian is fair. Yes, lets hold that thought guys. It is an important thought because racism and inequality is sanctioned by the GMC courtesy of Blackstones Chambers of course.

Going Down Like Flies

GMC Asylum - Imprisoned Doctors

Interim Orders are probably a violation of a doctors human rights. They place an invisible sanction on a doctor by issuing conditions or a more transparent sanction by suspension. These orders are done without full hearings. A famous case to be IOP heard is Osbourne's brother.

Nevertheless, the GMC conducts them. I was pondering on Professor Reuben's statistics regarding 78 doctors per year who are struck off which isn't a great deal in the grand scale of the world. There was a mismatch between what the lay of the land is ie many doctors complaining about the GMC and the fact the GMC says that it only takes up a "minority" of complaints. I therefore contemplated where all these doctors were.

I ended up late last night on the IOP website. You can apparently browse this website by date and it is quite shocking to look through. I must say that I was never threatened by an IOP but was shocked at the violation of human rights in the case of Dr India. The GMC were utterly mad, holding an IOP hearing because Dr India had tried to explain that it was the hospital's responsibility to check on his GMC Conditions. The consultant disagreed and attempted to blame him. A verbal fracas broke out between consultant and half wit Dr Leon Le Roux who crowed about how right he was. Dr India then asked the GMC to intervene and sort this issue out. The GMC deemed those emails " inappropriate" but admitted they had no guidance to show what was appropriate.

Instead of sorting out the matter then and there, the crazy nutty fools at the GMC held a IOP, attempted to question his personality then penalised him by removing his rights to work as a locum. Le Roux who was the dimbo in this entire escapade was never criticised at all despite being the cause of it all.

We then recieved an email from the GMC FOI department proving that Leon Le Roux was completely and utterly wrong. It had been the Trust responsibility to check on the doctor. Period. So Dr India was right all along and Dr Le Roux was wrong.

No apology has been issued to Dr India. That is because the GMC aren't into apologies. They are simply into harassment.

Anyway, back to the IOP orders page - between May 2008-May 2009 - there have been at least 5 doctors per day whom the GMC have placed sanctions on. Indeed, the roll call is heart breaking and I often wonder why their fellow colleagues are simply sitting around accepting this violation of human rights in light of the case Wright [ House of Lords]. Given the GMC's utter psychopathic behaviour in many instances, I only wonder what happened to all those doctors.

Raj Mattu. GMC siddles up to Whistleblower

Doctor under GMC Investigation

There was a true story I once heard on Heart FM. A large snake had been the pet of a lady for many years. During a certain time, the snake stopped eating but started lengthening itself next to its owner. The owner went to the vet and asked what was wrong with the pet snake. The vet stated that the snake was getting ready to eat her.

Now, that is very similar to the behaviour of GMC Towers. Our medical regulatory body has a whistleblowing policy which they never follow. It then often decides to reverse the complaint upon the whistleblower. I have first hand experience of this because the matter I whistleblew on was never taken up or considered by the GMC. The doctors who failed in the matter of Ward 87 continue to work quite happily. By contrast the GMC have harassed me so much through their procedures, that I am no longer in medicine. Then I am a junior doctor and the only junior who has whistleblown to this extent.

Consultant whistleblowers have a better survival power but they have a great deal of support. Nevertheless, you can see the GMC siddle up to Raj Mattu in this article here. In 2009, Mattu was exonorated by the GMC.

"Dr Mattu, aged 49, was suspended by the former Walsgrave Hospital over allegations of bullying in 2002. He was marched out of the hospital less than six months after exposing how patients had died on overcrowded bays.

Now the General Medical Council (GMC) has exonerated the cardiologist of more than 150 complaints made against him by the hospital trust after one of the longest suspensions in NHS history"

Of course, it is only exoneration as the GMC sees it. Mattu's fitness to practise record at the GMC is ruined. He doesn't know this yet but there we have it. The complaints will remain on his file for good and of course the double jeopardy rule may apply in the future. He has gone back to the same Trust and no doubt they will create more problems for him in the future.

Mattu is right about one issue - it is immensely difficult defending any simple allegation when it comes to the GMC. An organisation that is completely and utterly psychopathic normally has no insight into the repercussions of whistleblowing eg organisational reprisal. As we can see from the case featured on NHS Behind the Headlines, many whistleblowers who are doctors are frisked by the GMC. It is a broadly unrecognised phenomena but nevertheless, it does happen. The GMC may not have got Mattu on this occasion but the future prognosis is not good. They will soon start to nit pick at his performance during revalidation and appraisal. Close scrutiny is what they are into. Whistleblowers according to them need monitoring and made an example of.

Nevertheless, Mattu is a free man - for now.

Dr Mattu welcomed the GMC’s verdict and the end of the “immeasurable stress” of having to defend himself.

"He now hopes to be fully reinstated and retrained to carry out his full medical and research duties at University Hospital in Walsgrave and the University of Warwick.

He said: “It has been a difficult decade for my family, friends and me.

“I am very grateful for the support of the local community and my advisers during this terrible ordeal.

“We dearly hope that we shall now be allowed to have a normal life. ”

University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire Trust declined to comment on the GMC’s decision or how much it had spent pursuing disciplinary action against Dr Mattu"

Ben Bradshaw. Such a idiot

Bad Boy Bradshaw

Bradshaw is a pot calling kettle black kind of person. He has been aware of many medical whistleblowers in the NHS and has done nothing about it. He runs away from commenting on Ward 87 because lets face it, Ward 87 and the warnings to the government in 1999 are now an embarrassment to them. The big question is this - when the government was told, why didn't they do anything about the status of the hospitals in the Midlands? If they had acted, 2000 people could have been saved. That is the basic upshot.

Well, it is all silence in the Bradshaw court on that.

Bradshaw conveniently avoids Ward 87 by never responding to the issues put to him. When Andrew Mitchell MP and I wrote to him about recording Ward death rates to monitor standards of care, he told us it wasn't required. His bizarre reasoning was further questioned. He was asked what research he was depending on regarding his decision. There was no subsequent response.

Ben Bradshaw can be seen getting on the media bandwagon about Undercover Nurse. Apparently he feels that her treatment by the NMC was unduly harsh. That may be so, but we have to look at the Department of Health's internal documents to understand the fact that in the year 2000, Department of Health officials and the General Medical Council purposely sought to mislead the inquiry into Ward 87. They purposely assisted in the reversal of an investigation on me. Their internal Department of Health documents are littered with criticisms of me. The question though remains - why was no individual on Ward 87 - be it the half baked nurses or the doctors ever held accountable? And why is David Fillingham, the then Chief Executive still working?

The documents cite the Department of Health admitting that they needed to "make an example" of a junior doctor. Their collusion with the General Medical Council is well documented through their officer at the time Professor Rod " I can lie because I can" Griffiths. The Department of Health structured a strategic cover-up of the concerns on Ward 87 by ensuring the Report THEY provided was diametrically opposite to the concealed internal reports at the hospital.

The Department of Health's collusion with the General Medical Council can be seen on this website. [right side midway]. These internal documents obtained under the Data Protection Act show the direct collusion and constant communication between them and the GMC and a phrase from the Department of Health related to the media " Which Line Shall We Take".

We have to remind Bradshaw that the minions at the Department of Health didn't close Ward 87 down despite the fact it was killing patients. What they did do was leave it open until 2005 so more patients died. The Trust then shut it down during the 6 months I forced the Report out of them. In seven years, I wonder how many people died? Well, we don't know because the hospital conveniently never recorded death rate - as the government does not deem it appropriate.

It was of course because of the Department of Health's intervention with the General Medical Council that prompted the GMC into conducting what they termed a " discreet inquiry" onto me. When Liam Donaldson was told of this behaviour of both the Department of Health official Prof Rod Griffiths and the General Medical Council, he ignored it. So I wonder if their involvement with me was "unduly" harsh.

Ben Bradshaw is acutely aware that they shot the whistleblower in 1998 and 2000. They subsequently told the media there were no concerns at the hospital [ and yes I have the press releases]. They then colluded in the GMC's efforts at character assasinating me. When they found out I was right, they then concealed it from me for 7 more years. Having done that and once it was discovered that people were actually dying in the Midlands, the Department of Health had nothing to say. Well, Ben should understand that had his cronies acted in 1998 and 2000 when they were warned about all Midlands Hospitals, patients would not have died. The 1999 letter to Frank Dobson by me outlines the shocking poor care throughout the Midlands, not to mention the fact that patient safety was being compromised. This letter was filed only to reappear in Pal v GMC 2004 when the GMC exclaimed that no response was ever provided by the Department of Health.

Well, Ben Bradshaw says nothing about the treatment of whistleblowing doctors by the General Medical Council being "unduly" harsh. He says nothing about the fact that investigations have been reversed on Dr Peter Wilmshurst, Mr Robert Phipps, Dr Shreedar Vaidya , Dr Raj Mattu and myself. All these doctors raised valid evidence based concerns. He says nothing about the destructive influence of the General Medical Council on doctor's careers. I no longer work in medicine. Does anyone ask the question - Why doesn't Dr Pal work in medicine anymore? Well, of course not. That is because very few would understand the machinations of whistleblowing.

That is because in Bradshaw's eyes there is only one self created whistleblower - that is Undercover Nurse.

We should get something in perspective here, not all nurses are angels, indeed, the Ward 87 nurses who were never admonished were wicked little madams with psychopathic streaks. What happens when a doctor whistleblows on nurses' incompetence? And many doctors know of incompetent lazy nurses who sit around the nursing station while patients struggle for breath and finally go into cardiac arrest. On Ward 87, I hold the nursing staff responsible for scapegoating me and victimising me. They were never disciplined by the NMC. Do we get a situation where the nursing fraternity gangs up on the medical whistleblower? Did the RCN or the NMC ever apologise for the conduct of these half baked incompetent nurses? Of course, they didn't. Anyway, the NMC's response to Ward 87 makes their double standards crystal clear. I would not call all nurses angels because they just aren't.

Liz Longstaff of the Royal College of Nursing was present at this 2001 Review on Ward 87 . The NMC in the guise of UKCC was also present [see list of people present on page 116 of the report] What did these people do? Well, while the RCN crows away in the news about poor care and does an excellent job for Undercover Nurse and whistleblowing nurses, let us remind them of their own responsibilities towards the patients on Ward 87. The Royal College of Nursing [ RCN] actually did nothing about the poor care on Ward 87 - apart from sit and around and look pretty of course. So in the RCN survey of late, they stated

"But one in three of them said that no action had been taken and that their concerns had been swept under the carpet"

We therefore assume that the RCN themselves came under that statistic in 2001.

So as we see the Stafford/Undercover Nurse/RCN/Ben Bradshaw combo go through the media bandwagon, we should remember what their true behaviour is like without publicity. We should also remember that average whistleblowers aren't Undercover Nurse. They are concerned folk who raise concerns without the razzmatazz of the media. It is therefore the reaction without media coverage that is the most important - because not every whistleblower is going to be on Panorama. Undercover Nurse is therefore a rather artificial situation - the reality is that other average whistleblowers don't get potential pay offs from Panorama, nor do they go to the media that much - and these are the whistleblowers that lack support.

While the RCN may well be making up for their past faults, Ben Bradshaw is simply being a typical Labour " jump on the bandwagon" media addict. It is politically advantageous to back Undercover Nurse because the people will apparently think what a fair man he is. Well, in honesty, Bradshaw has probably caused more deaths with his dysfunctional policies than anyone else.

He has never cared much for whistleblowers, he certainly ignores medical whistleblowers and is of the view that they should go away to some planet away from England. He has never assisted any medical whistleblowing consultant - that includes Steve Bolsin.

Lets ask Ben - if he is so concerned about whistleblowers, why doesn't he bring Steve Bolsin back to England where he belongs? He won't you see. Because Ben Bradshaw has never considered whistleblowers to be people he should listen to.

Despite all the publicity, the Health Select Committee has currently denied a review into Whistleblowing Post Bristol. The man responsible for the refusal is Kevin Barron MP, GMC Committee member. Quelle Surprise!