Dr B Wins his Postponement.

Dr B. Playing GMC Roulette

In the last few posts, I have written about the General Medical Council's efforts to postpone the hearing for Dr A. I also reported the reluctance of Toni Smerdon, GMC Solicitor to provide a adjournment for Dr B.

At the 11th hour, Dr B has managed to achieve his postponement for a few weeks while he serves his pre-action documents. The decision was made by the Chairman of the Investigation Committee. Dr B had prepared his injunction ready to go when the decision floated in.

Dr B wins this point as litigant in person. This shows us all how unpredictable circumstances can be at the GMC. The above follows Dr B's consistent hard work for the last 54 hours, that too whilst ill.

Further jousting will begin soon enough. Right, time for a rest and some chocolates.

Spectacular F***** Up. GMC Does it Again

Bedtime reading for the GMC

An extract of an email sent by GMC Towers is presented below - the GMC have decided to postpone some hearings. They clearly can't get their ducks in a row.

Please note some years ago, the GMC admonished a doctor for being " disorganised" and threw conditions on his Registration. Another one was erased. This is what they stated :-

"The Panel notes the voluminous documentation which you have provided to it but is concerned at the unstructured nature of your efforts to address the concerns clearly set out by the previous Panel. It has found your PDP, structured development plan and reflective learning diary to be disorganised, unstructured and lacking in the necessary element of reflection upon your own practice.

While, after prompting, you have provided a PDP, the Panel does not consider that the document produced is fit to meet the purpose of a PDP. Rather than set out a structured plan for your development and the remediation of the deficiencies highlighted, it contains non-reflective material and includes your complaints regarding the consequences of the suspension of your registration by the GMC"

This is part of an email the GMC Sent Out recently :-

"We are currently facing a situation where we are unable to run all the hearings scheduled to be heard during this period. Having considered the circumstances relating to a number of cases over this period, we are proposing to make an application to xxxx, under Rule 29 of the Fitness to Practise Rules 2004, that this hearing should be postponed"

Clearly, the GMC's appears to be "disorganised". Perhaps even "disorganised, unstructured and lacking in the necessary element of reflection upon their own practice".

Anyone planning on sanctioning the GMC for this spectacular f****up that inconveniences all the doctors, their legal team etc due for their hearings? Seriously, I want to know where Toni Smerdon, Juliet Oliver and Lesley Morgan's favorite case law is. Would that be Mahfouz? The case law quoted by all of them to refuse doctors an adjournment or a stay in proceedings? Of course, it doesn't apply to the GMC - one rule for doctors, another rule for the GMC. This is so such piss poor performance. Which regulatory body in the world behaves in this manner?

As I have always said, the GMC has never been held accountable, they do what they want to, when they want to - the law means nothing to them. If they don't agree with something, they hop off to Parliament and obtain an amendment to the Rules or the Medical Act 1983.

GMC Runs Away

GMC Swat Team Overbooked

Yesterday, I described the tale of Dr A. Today, the GMC want to postpone the hearing and run off because they apparently don't have enough time and have overbooked. Interestingly, when Dr A requested a postponement of his IOP last year citing an inadequate time frame to prepare for the hearing ie 7 days, the GMC refused to move. It sat on its fat bottom and requested that the doctor attend. Amazing how their opinion changes when THEY require an adjournment.

In the meantime, Dr B's Interim Order Panel hearing is still due because the GMC Legal Team refuse to respond to his emails. He will probably end up applying to the Courts for an Temporary Injunction. Then the GMC have a full blown vendetta against Dr B. They have been trailing him for some years now subjecting him to mental health assessments then when he is cleared of that throwing him into the conduct proceedings. Then when they were caught out misapplying Good Medical Practise, they shifted their tact and stated " Ah, the doctor apologised therefore we are using that as evidence of misconduct".

Bloody Depressing

Well, both my friends are facing their maker this week at the General Medical Council. I feel for them. I told one of them the other day that I just didn't have the guts to face a hearing at the GMC which is why I fought like hell and litigated against the GMC. I haven't faced as much as they have. I litigated to protect myself and to protect my livelihood at the time. People get criticised for litigating - I do it as a means of self preservation. A time comes when you have no other alternative left.

My material only touched the surface of the complaints procedure before I showed my teeth and decided to go into gobbling mode. I hate going into gobbling mode because I am such a placid kind of person. To beat the GMC, you have to turn yourself into some kind of hard hearted fighting machine.

Being at the GMC often reminds me of a really crappy movie called Open Water. I recall watching it through one of my clashes with them. The movie is about two divers left in the middle of the ocean. They do everything to survive and finally they give up - one is gobbled up by a shark and the other commits suicide.

I recall being consumed with anger at the unfairness of the GMC. I was eating my maltesers at the Vue Cinemas thinking that I really didn't want to be eaten by a shark and I didn't want to kill myself. The two alternatives were messy - and hell, no one wants to be found by an Ambulance crew with BHS pants.

It wasn't just the unfairness of it all but the fact that I had to read large numbers of seriously boring documents and case law because my legal advisors were so damned lazy. I have even drafted pre-action protocols for them. Imagine drafting papers for lawyers. I used to sit in the garden wondering what the f** I had done in my past life to be punished by being buried alive in this mountain of legal paperwork.

So not only are the GMC idiotic and mad, their lawyers are completely stark raving bonkers. After that, your own lawyers end up being lazy gits. Part of the battle is really about aiming your lawyers ready to fire at the GMC. Motivating lawyers into fighting the GMC is difficult. Firstly, none of them understand the impact of a GMC investigation on employment, and secondly no one reads. Without reading, most will guffaw away pointlessly. As a scientist you look at them all and think " What the f*** is going on?". One aspect of your character that has to change is this - you have to learn to swear because by doing that you understand what a bunch of useless and pointless gits the GMC and all defence lawyers are.

My old dad used to have a saying that went something like this " Self Help is the best help". And its true cause if you want to get anything done in this world, you can't rely on anyone else. Certainly, if you are fighting the GMC, if you want to get yourself out of the sh***, you have to do it yourself. Either that, or you get eaten up or commit suicide. Defending yourself against the GMC is difficult. It is the hardest, most pointless thing I have ever done. Even when you know the rules, the case law etc, the GMC will always bend the rules to do what they want. You look at them and say " Hey, the case law says this". They turn around and essentially tell you they don't give a damn what the case law says.

So, I am often asked how I beat the GMC in 2004. It was done out of sheer anger and I often find that when I reach that status, I can work and research for more hours than the lawyers can stay awake for. It is all well and good talking about "measured approaches". Well, having been measured, calm and polite, the only thing that sometimes works is being forthright.

I just think it is impossible to be measured when the GMC push you against the wall and try and pin you to it. While they are stapling you to the wall, the entire world blames you for it - not them.

At that point, you fight to survive. A hearing was not an option for me. I cannot imagine any of the poncy gits at the panel understanding Dr Rita Pal, who I am, what I am, what I believe in . Would they accept the fact that I think they are all tossers. There is a reason for using language like that - it makes you feel considerably better. It is colloquial language, the language of the street and when you are fighting guttersnipes with no ethics or morals, you have to use the same lowly words.

I think both my friends are brave. I don't know how they do it - live every day and try and concentrate on everything that involves human functioning - drinking water, eating and keeping sane. My first friend Dr A told me this afternoon that he had resigned himself to his fate. That he now didn't care what the GMC did to him. He didn't care about medicine and that he was going to take the rest of the week off to rest, eat, watch TV and be cool. He is going to leave things to fate and his Queens Counsel. That is one way of dealing with things. Not giving a damn probably helps us all cope mentally. I remember Dr A when we worked together and I was fighting the GMC. I had to keep my angst away from him in 2003. Indeed, I could never tell anyone about what was happening to me. I conducted my business with the GMC in complete silence. At work, no one noticed that I was exhausted by the inordinate amount of work I had to do - printing papers, reading papers, posting files, instructing solicitors. All this was time consuming. The worst thing about it was to do this alone.

By comparison Dr B, is representing himself, working day and night with his correspondence and challenging the GMC Legal Team. Dr B has told them that they have no patient concerns and that his Trust are simply fuelling the fire. Dr B's issues were regarding consultants who were not happy with his abrupt tone so went and cried to the GMC. These consultants continuously throw their toys out of the pram and cry to the GMC. When I looked at their correspondence, they didn't even know the sections of Good Medical Practise. I was amazed that these people were made consultants. Then the reason our profession is in a mess is because consultants these days think they know it all - when they know jacks***.

Dr B has told the General Medical Council that he wishes to challenge the Registrars illegal decision in a Court of Law. He has requested that the GMC stay his Interim Order Panel until the pre-action discussions are complete. Pre-actions are compulsory. The GMC have refused to halt the Interim Order Panel despite case law stating that they should halt matters until the issue under dispute his resolved. Then the GMC never stops its procedures and quote a sloppy case called Mahfouz.

So that's the GMC for you, no one can stop them mid procedure even though their decision may be grossly illegal and irrational. You have to get struck off, have a sanction on your head, lose your job etc before attempting to challenge them and by then your name is in the dust.

This is the utter madness of the GMC. I don't know how my friends will cope. I fear for both of them in different ways. I always remember the SpR in General Medicine Joel Branch. He was given a rough ride by the General Medical Council and arch oddball Peter Lynn. Peter is arrogant, he works for the GMC, he has private insurance paid for by doctors. This makes his life comfortable so he can victimise juniors. The GMC solicitor involved here was Toni Smerdon. Smerdon doesn't have any ethics. She knows it as well and doesn't care. Both managed to hound Joel until the end of time. In the end, Joel became a fugitive from England due to some contempt of court issue. He is probably lost in their Interim Order Panel somewhere. There were no patient concerns about Joel. Joel was a competent rational Medical SpR - a talented doctor who nearly became a consultant. I have no idea where Joel is now. I still look at his emails with great sadness because despite all his efforts, his intellect etc, he was unable to defeat the GMC. Joel disappeared and I wish this had never happened to him. No one asks about Joel Branch. No one knows he has gone missing courtesy of the GMC actions. There is a brief House of Lords application with his name but that about it. He is probably one of many who have simply disappeared without a trace.

I don't understand why my friends have been subjected to these draconian measures. They aren't rebellious like me, they have always tried to do the right thing. Life isn't perfect and they may have tripped up a bit - but it is devastating for me to see one doctor going down one by one. The worst thing about this is I can't do much to assist them. Lawyers don't care, journalists don't care - who cares about doctors? We are deemed to be Dr Shipmans until proven otherwise. Yet, the majority of us just try and work hard, support our families and do the best for our patients. In the end, no one gives a sh*** even if a doctor jumps of a cliff. At that point, the establishment will say " Ah but he was always a bit unstable and unsuitable for medicine".

This post Shipman era is so unfair. There is no justice for doctors anymore.

A Bad Week

Junior Doctors.
Forced to Walk The Line

In the next 10 days both my friends are facing their Interim Order Panels. It is probably time to check out the panelists for any conflict of interests. One is attempting a challenge in court. There is a first time for everything.

This is a damned awful situation for any junior doctor to be in. This is some interesting case law

"that the criteria to be applied by the court are the same as for the original Interim Order, namely protection of members of the public, the public interest and the practitioner's own interests; that the onus of satisfying the court that one or more of the criteria have been met falls on the applicant; that the relevant standard of proof is the civil standard; that the court can take into account such matters as the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the evidence, the seriousness of the risk of harm to patients, the reasons why the case has not been concluded and the prejudice to the practitioner if the order is extended; that the court is not bound to follow the opinion of the GMC or the Interim Orders Panel, but can take it into account and give such weight to it as the court thinks fit". General Medical Council v Sathananthan [2008] EWHC 872

In the meantime, I have found out that Elizabeth Paice of Plaice Towers was involved in shafting a medical student some years ago. My jaw dropped following the document I was sent. More on this later in life. Nevertheless, that rogue dean should be taken away from her job and retired on whatever grounds the GMC can think of. No Interim Panel Order for Paice then. Shame really.

Bloggers are authors of their own destiny

The Guardian had an interesting piece on bloggers.

Certainly a fascinating read.

For me, it prevented me from being struck off the GMC Register. I am one of the few whistleblowers without a disciplinary sanction on their heads. When coping with establishment mobbing, the internet often acts as a good deterrent. I don't just fight on paper - I fight in every way available to me.

It ensured that am in contact with huge numbers of doctors and the public and secondly, it keeps me going. I value my colleagues who are medical bloggers and even though I have no idea who they are, we keep a good pulse on the current state of play. I find blogging acts to formulate my ideas and to increase my knowledge. My knowledge of various issues has probably hiked up considerably since I have been blogging. I think faster, formulate ideas better and can probably debate successfully with anyone. At least I have the confidence to do so. This is the benefit of sharing ideas online. It is therefore the best self development tool.

For all whistleblowers, I would recommend your own publicity bandwagon. Never trust the media.

I think your own brand of publicity is the only way to survive in this rough terrain for whistleblowers. The odds are stacked against every single whistleblower. Raising the various issues online acts as a deterrent for those who would otherwise attempt to sink you. Publicity in this way is therefore a very good weapon.

I blog for me and it is a side effect that other people read it.

Shameless and Mischievous

i

This year, I promised myself I was going to be a good girl. I had to look that definition up in the dictionary because I clearly had no idea about the meaning of it. It was suggested to me that I had indeed grown up!? and that I should stop gnawing at the establishment's flaws. Firstly, I have always remained about 19 and I appear not to have aged. Sadly, even my brain works just as fast as it did then. I suspect being a whistleblower of years gone past hasn't helped because it means I don't actually give a damn about political correctness.

While my collective peers are busy making babies and wondering about their biological clocks, my hobby after midnight is dissecting the medical underworld. It is probably a dangerous hobby but one that is quite interesting. Everyone should have the knowledge of why things around them happen. Some say that to understand the present and the future, one must understand the past.

Having a relatively photographic memory has its advantages. Firstly, good looking men are always imprinted in my mind. Some things are important and perhaps vital. These things are a priority so I think about Hugh Jackman before anything on this post. In the old days, it was Harrison Ford but men get crumply with age and we all have to adapt.

Secondly, I often remember what I have read about 10 years ago. And this is what happened late last night with the name Sandy Macara. The vague memory of him being with the BMA and the General Medical Council sprung to mind while I was watching Sky News and munching on my maltesers.

Having served the establishment doctors for the term of his BMA life, Sandy [ much like Donald Irvine ex President of the GMC] had changed sides and gone to the Patients Association. So there he was as a Trustee. I was a little shocked because I thought Sandy had retired to gardening and a nursing home. Apparently, there is till life in the old dog yet. Kitted out with his silk handkerchief and smart suit, Macara parades himself as the patient saviour. Of course, he isn't one, we all know that.

Sandy, also known as Alexander happens to be a Freemason. He hasn't declared this because he probably thinks the public may not approach the Patients Association if they knew that the biggest establishment honcho was getting access to their data. I have nothing against freemasons but they can be a bit annoying when they start playing the same games as described in Stephen Knights The Brotherhood. I read the book in about 2001 following the BBC piece on Freemasons at the GMC. The issue about the Brotherhood is that it opens your eyes to some of the tactics used in medicine. Medical Freemasons are essentially protectors of the establishments interests. Have I been subject to their tactics? Who knows but if I have been, their tactics haven't quite worked. Recognition of the tactics used by Freemasonry is essential to any doctor in the NHS.

Anyway, like Lord Walton who must be about 200 years old, Sir Sandy will one day probably reside with him in a crypt known as the House of Lords. Lord Walton was the ex President of the General Medical Council. Under his reign numerous doctors went down without due care for their human rights. The problem with these crumply old men is that they swan around high places and assume that respect should be handed on a plate to them.

The usual traits of those who reside in the medical crypts of the hallowed halls is that they all have the opportunity of strengthening the Medical Act 1983 into something that controls doctors so much so that they have no freedom. The Medical Act 1983 today was developed by none other than ex GMC President Lord Walton who discussed the various aspects at the House of Lords debates. For anyone wondering why the disciplinary situation is so bad, all of you now know where to look. While all this was being done in the name of medical regulation, most doctors accepted it all silently. Now prices are being paid, in some cases with their livelihoods. The reason for this is to set an example for the rest of the working doctors - that they should not step out of line or criticize the status quo. Essentially, the Medical Act 1983 has become a livelong imprisonment should you accept its terms. Lord Walton may not be President of the GMC, he is though more powerful because he controls legislation by influencing debates. It isn't known whether Walton was also a freemason but the probability is high.

We should credit old Sandy for the following

From the BMJ

" The only public health doctor on the GMC, and Former Chairman of the BMA Council, Sir Alexander Macara said that he was out of tune with the current GMC Leadership and had called for the consultation document on revalidation to be referred back. He said he was disturbed by the impression that no reforms were made before the case of the paediatric heart surgeons of Bristol. There had been support for reaccreditation and the previous president had introduced the performance review procedures. The pace of the reforms might have been faster but the intention was there" he said. Sir Alexander Macara queried whether revalidation was necessary now that clinical performance and appraisal had been proposed"

Sandy will of course be aware that the Bristol Surgeons were apparently originally found not guilty by the panel. Rumour has it that Donald Irvine decided to take the panellist to one side and instigate a change of verdict. I am of course happy for anyone at the GMC to correct me on this.

The first job of revalidation is to probably to assess Sandy's ability to assess statistics at the Patients Association. At present, the Trustee of the Patients Association who is a public health expert appears to have got his figures tits up :). Of course, the responsibility for faulty statistics falls on the Trustees themselves. If a asian junior doctor made this mistake, the GMC would wave its flag citing that it can caught a doctor as part of its target practice. They would then hang that doctor in their public gallows and laugh.

Sandy though will float in and out of the Patients Association complete with silk handkerchief. Status does this to people. Their serene outlook is a example of decadence, Earl Grey tea and intellectual discussions on neat tables dressed with fine cutlery. These were though the men responsible for the NHS as it is today.

Perhaps this piece is not a "measured approach" or a "temperate" one but it is spot on :). Bit shameless and mischievous though much like my efforts to join the masons and the BNP :). Apparently, I am not to be allowed membership and I can't think of a reason why this would be so :).

Upset

This week three of my medical friends have been subjected to Interim Order Panels at the General Medical Council. I just feel this is outrageous. Not only are IOP's illegal but these three doctors have never had any problems with patient safety. All three have been subjected to Interim Order Panels because they are politically incorrect. Or shall we say the GMC are hounding them because they are outspoken about a number of issues. Two have been dropped by their defence union and one still has his defence union in tact.

I am upset about it because out of all the bad doctors out there who end patient lives, neglect them etc, it is only the good doctors who end up at Interim Order Panels. None of these doctors are there because of patients complaints. They are all there because their medical directors took hum bridge and sold them out to the General Medical Council. Following their initial investigation which had to be disclosed to other employers, the other employers hyper scrutinised them. Having done so, they handed the doctors back to the General Medical Council on a plate.

Their fates are uncertain and as Bad Medicine points out, at present they are constructively erased, probably unemployable and have their careers minced by the General Medical Council. Careers of course mean livelihoods. Ruining someone's livelihood is not a simple thing to be overlooked. Sadly, for the GMC, they admitted in a courtroom that employment prospects etc was not their responsibility. Of course, the GMC ought to understand that they can't "control" the world and this is not the way to behave towards good doctors.

Anyhow, we are clearly going through dangerous territory. Reports from the Society of Clinical Psychiatry suggest that the problem is more widespread.

I am really upset today for my colleagues - because they are all fighting a losing battle. I know what a losing battle it is because I have fought part of it. The Medical Act 1983 is all powerful. This makes the GMC all powerful. They abuse the words - patient safety and public interest . Soon, innocent junior doctors are going to get their heads locked in the GMC chopping block. Legally, there is little hope of recovery from these situations. The GMC have manipulated themselves into a situation where their is little chance of seeking a remedy.

RCN, NMC and Peter Clark

Now, if the truth be known, I quite like Peter Clark. I think he tries to do a good job under quite difficult circumstances. What amuses me about the nursing profession is this, when bad nursing is proven, few do anything.

Now, this is the evidence on Ward 87. There are actually 2 reports on how substandard the nursing care was and how bad the management was.

The nursing profession aren't all bad. I do though think that government mismanagement and funding problems, increases in paperwork has led to the service being stretched. Ward 87 though had a combination of factors - malicious nurses and poor management. That is quite rare. I have never seen such nurses anywhere else in the NHS. There are simply pockets of bad nurses much like there are doctors. At least RCN stuck up for their whistleblower and they try and do things right. It is much more than the medical profession has done for all their whistleblowers. They tend to be ostriches and hide away denying that serious problems exist when whistleblowing.

I also don't think Claire Rayner's onslaught on the nursing profession is fair. Afterall, there is no independent evidence verifying the tales of the unexpected as touted by Rayner on the Patient Association website. It is notable that no media outlet actually cares about the statistics. Since, I mocked the Patient Associations misleading statistics yesterday, I note the Times has come up with a more softer version of the statistics. It is rather startling that when a doctor touts stories like this, he or she must have an axe to grind and when the public do this, they must be right. To be honest while I have every sympathy for the 16 patients and their relatives touted by the Patients Association, I note the same demands for evidence and independent inquiries are not required. Any member of the public can go to a newspaper, present their perception of what happened and it will be believed and published. In reality though, the public have a completely different perception of bad care, they often misinterpret the care given by doctors. They are only a handful who will take the time and evidence base their allegations. There are therefore dangers in relying on subjective reporting. The fact is that the Patient Association does not show that 1 million patients are subjected to neglect. The facts are that they provide the tales of 16 patients and use the Inpatient Survey Results done by the NHS to justify their 16 cases. Extrapolating these figures and misleading the public is simply unforgivable.

The bottomline is that we all have 16 or more cases to tout around. Not all of us extrapolate that figure to 1 million patients.

The Patients Association attempted to mimic the Death by Indifference document for Learning Disabilities. The good thing about Death by Indifference is they did not make wild allegations and statistical extrapolations.

And then there is Ward 87. Now Ward 87 had case after case after case. Its reign of neglect continued since 10 years before me and 7 years after me. Well, there are two independent reports. There is a damning report from the nurse who assessed it but no one thought to do a broader data study.

During the main drafting of the 2001 report both the NMC and the RCN were present. It is now 2009, no charges have been brought against any of the nurses. After gruffing and whining that they couldn't find the nurses, a decade or more later, the NMC have sat down to read the report and investigate Ward 87. So we should remember that this isn't just me saying " ah the care is poor" or filling in a survey, its really about other nurses saying how bad the situation was.

This isn't an obsession as everyone would like to believe. It is really about accountability. It is about the fact that despite two damning reports, the powers that be simply sat around, sagely nodded and moved along. So every year since 2005, I have communicated with the NMC in about April each year. This is partly to observe how long accountability takes and it is also to monitor their attitude to poor care. In summary, I can say the NMC is probably grossly careless with their complaints. They were though very keen to take up Undercover Nurse and strike her off the Register and they did that in record time. In the meantime, the malicious vindictive nursing staff on Ward 87 continue to work in the NHS.

GMC's Scenario on Whistleblowing.

Shameless organization.
High Rate of Whistleblower Career Assasination

The General Medical Council's Policy Advisor Sharon Burton has been writing in BMJ Careers. I suspect this is to cosy up to the junior doctor population so the GMC is seen as a helpful organisation. One thing you have to remember about the GMC is never to believe what is written on the packet. The GMC will often do quite the opposite.

The General Medical Council have this to offer doctorkind. Even at 5am this morning, I can chuckle to myself and laugh at the scenario on child protection and Whistleblowing. Essentially, in Child Protection, the current law according to the GMC is that if you raise concerns and you are remotely wrong, the doctor can be hauled up in front of the GMC. In addition, if you rely on your chaperone, the Southall case law stipulates that the GMC won't believe them. So, yes, they won't believe your independent witness. They will though believe the lying scheming mother with a long history of dishonesty. I kid you not on this. This is taken directly from GMC v Southall.

They then run this Good Medical Practise Scenario

Dr Kwesi finds that the sterile packs he uses for surgery do not always contain the correct equipment. Colleagues suggest that this could be because the hospital is trying to save money by asking junior staff to fill them. Who should Dr Kwesi speak to? What should he do when the problem continues even after he has raised concerns?

"In a number of high profile cases, failure to report concerns early had serious consequences for patient care. GMC guidance says that doctors will be able to justify reporting a concern—even if it is groundless—if they do so honestly and go through the appropriate channels. In this situation Dr Kwesi reports the errors as an adverse event and tries to resolve the situation locally. When the situation doesn’t improve he speaks to the medical director at the hospital.

Good Medical Practice states that doctors must contribute to adverse event reporting to reduce the risk to patients. Dr Kwesi is doing the right thing in raising the matter. In this scenario the people Dr Kwesi would normally go to are part of the problem. The site draws on GMC advice to suggest that Dr Kwesi is left with no choice but to go outside the organisation and refer his concerns to the Care Quality Commission".

Nice to know the GMC are using that token foreign name to show how good they feel about foreign doctors. The fact that large numbers of foreign doctors are facing the GMC at this point in time is not a talking point for the GMC. Nevertheless, the above scenario is all well and good until

1. The Trust turns around and refers the doctor to the General Medical Council. The GMC will likely take the complaint up and will not listen to the doctors screams of raising patient concerns. They will then justify their action by using the " patient safety" excuse.

2. The General Medical Council regularly investigates and harasses Whistleblowers. Afterall, we know of the 2 year discreet inquiry conducted against me. Their justification in court was that my letter writing "tone" was not as they would like it. Actually, their tone in medical regulation and their catastrophic failures is not something I like either.

Essentially, Raj Mattu, Peter Wilmshurst, Dr S Vaidya, Robert Phipps and myself have all been investigated by the General Medical Council for doing exactly what the GMC suggests in its Good Medical Practise. If in doubt, the GMC rolls out Rule 57. Rule 57 is a nebulous Rule which applies to anything and everything.

"You must make sure that your conduct at all times justifies your patients’ trust in you and the public’s trust in the profession".

And if you examine Rule 52, for a crackpot organisation like the General Medical Council - any conduct can be considered misconduct if the GMC says so. There is no definition of conduct capable of being "misconduct". So, if you raise concerns in good faith, the GMC would reverse an investigation on you making a barrage of allegations. Indeed, Vaidya and Robert Phipps were sanctioned. Their whistleblowing concerns were not considered appropriately by any authority.

As for Ward 87, the General Medical Council refused point blank to investigate the two reports showing the failures in care. The senior doctors responsible for creating the poor standards of care on the Ward remain working without a stain on their character. They were never held accountable for failing to raise the concerns on Ward 87. I was though character assasinated for raising justified concerns about patient safety. Of course, no one has anything to say about this aspect. It was a spectacular fiasco and the GMC know it was. Their interest is not in the patient safety of Ward 87 but hounding me as the Whistleblower. Their two year discreet inquiry without a formal complaint is the disturbing issue here. The GMC does not require a complaint to commence an investigation. I believe many doctors forget that.

And that is how Whistleblowing works in practice. The above shows the GMC does not practise what it preaches and guess what I am not convinced by its use of the token foreign name because their race relations record is dire. If you are a not British, just forget about whistleblowing because the GMC will wash you down with some Cianti. An interesting case on whistleblowing is Eswaran v GMC. This Court of Appeal judicial review analyses the fact that the GMC failed to investigate the justified concerns of Dr Eswaran. His concerns on clinical safety were thrown out at the first stage. The Assistant Registrar in this case was Anna Neil - the lady who also threw out concerns on the MMC in R v GMC Ex Parte Remedy UK.

My theory is that the GMC acts as a primary filter to discourage whistleblowers. It is often very happy to act as an instrument of harassment against them. Their Whistleblowing Protocol can be downloaded here. As Dr Bright states, the GMC fails to recognise medical mobbing and victimisation of the Whistleblower. To them, Trusts are always right and junior doctors are always wrong. The fact remains that what is touted in public is not what happens in practise. Medical culture and the GMC have not changed at all. They are simply better at cosmetically presenting a good show when it comes to the media. There is no recognition for the fact that the GMC itself is an instrument of harassment used against whistleblowers. Leading medical journals fail to address this dimension. Then the BMJ have Brian Keighley on their Committee. Brian is of course a GMC Committee Member and also the screener for Vaidya's complaints. He screened out a number of complaints against senior doctors at Lincolnshire NHS Trust :).