Ward 87

Count Peter Rubin. The Fool at the GMC. Calling the GDC. Please supply a good dentist for immediate fang extraction

2009-11-15T02:28:00.000-08:00

Crosses to bare.

Prof Peter Rubin is in serious trouble. Not only is his integrity under question but legions of whistleblowers are threatening to use the case R v General Medical Council Ex Parte Pal 2009 to refer Rubin to the GMC's conduct procedures. Afterall by the GMC's own definition, anything that is capable of misconduct must be dragged through Stream 1 of the Fitness to Practise procedures. The rumours from the past are that Donald Irvine's position at the GMC became untenable when doctors complained about him. Count Rubin is steadily finding that he is not respected amongst the grassroot medical population. Whistleblowers in the NHS trapped within the General Medical Council are not happy at all by Rubin's statement in the BMJ.

Following on from the two pieces on Mobbing [ these can be read here and here] which have not pleased Professor Griffiths, Professor Rubin wrote the following large black lie in the BMJ.

"I want to make clear that any doctor who wants to report genuine concerns will have nothing to fear from the GMC. The GMC emphasises the responsibility of doctors to report their concerns and this is echoed throughout our guidance. In particular Good Medical Practice (2006) states both that doctors should raise concerns about inadequate resources and that they must protect patients from risk of harm posed by a colleague's conduct, performance or health. Raising Concerns (2006) makes clear that provided doctors have been honest, raising a concern is justified even if it turns out to be groundless"

Here is the GMC's own section on Probity.

So let us take a trip down memory lane and view a memo written by the General Medical Council's top henchmen. The GMC of course failed to implement a gagging clause that prevented these documents from seeing the light of day.

"I want to make clear that any doctor who wants to report genuine concerns will have nothing to fear from the GMC" Peter Rubin 2009

So come-on Professor Peter Rubin - answer the above. Tell the public why an investigation was reversed on the whistleblower on the strength of a " typographical error". This goes to show that despite a million degrees, a million titles, Professor Rubin cannot tell the truth . This is of course intellectual corruption. Rubin is covering up the GMC's misdemeanors. In the above case, the concerns on Ward 87 were justified and upheld by two internal hospital reports. The above case ended through a settled court case in my favour. The GMC failed to investigate or take up the concerns related to Ward 87.

During that time, the General Medical Council was labelled as a totalitarian regime by a High Court Judge.

As one commenter on this blog pointed out - Count Peter Rubin needs his teeth extracting each time he spews lies into the media. An immediate call out has been placed with the GDC. Dentists will hopefully be able to attend the General Medical Council complete with Fang Extraction Kit as an emergency.

Medical Mobbing Part Deux. The Prowling Professor Griffiths

2009-11-13T14:17:00.000-08:00

Professor Rod Griffiths finally crept out and bared his decaying teeth like the large last great big bad wolf of medicine. The grandee of the old guard has spoken. We must therefore listen, take note then break into laughter. His post online is something I have to feature here out of fairness. It can be read here. Everyone deserves a defense - even big bad wolves.

Old Rodders claims to be a misunderstood man. Apparently, I have misunderstood him. The evidence on paper tells us a different story. Senior doctors always see themselves to be pillars of society that people should look up to. Old Rodders is no different. In all honesty, we don't think he is even fit to direct traffic and that was one of our submissions to the General Medical Council.

He was last observed prowling around at night without his Zopliclone tablets. Many of you can read old Rodders here. Clearly he has finally made his way onto the internet and is sashaying around with his CBE. Old men of medicine need to accessorize. He hasn't learned to justify his text or write properly yet but hey give it time. He may well create a blog well worth reading. As arch enemies go, Old Rodders was the most inept. I can't even say he would make a good James Bond baddy. His defenses were poor and his story kept changing from minute to minute. Old Rodders did not provide the GMC with ALL the paper work related to Ward 87. For Old Rodders, the line between the truth and a lie is blurred. He may have gone to a grammar school but position, fame and power have effectively made him into a male himbo [ the female version is called a bimbo]. This is what happens when the brain does not apply itself. Griffiths lost touch with reality a long time ago. I have this theory that when doctors reach a certain position of seniority and when other people do work for them, they become deskilled. This is what has happened to Griffiths. You can see this by the manner in which he responded to the allegations presented. The problem with Old Rodders is that he doesn't even realise what he has done. He has no idea of the impact of his actions. He currently resides in Worcestershire oblivious to the domino effect of his conduct. His comments to the General Medical Council was to influence the GMC totally in the year 2000. Following his damaging comments, the GMC have always been convinced that I was the one to be chased. Griffiths had the option of telling the GMC that Dr Monica Spitieri and Dr John Green [ Consultants responsible for Ward 87] should have been held accountable. Griffiths did not do this. Griffiths in his post on this website makes numerous comments about Ward 87. He plays up on his role in holding people to account.

Of course. his only role was to neatly cover up the truth. Of course, it has become a little messy for Griffiths these days. He doesn't say that he ever recommended that the GMC reopen the investigation into Ward 87. Indeed, if he had a conscience after all these years, that is what he would have recommended. He didn't. The public can therefore see his so called "concern" for those patients on Ward 87. Of course, Ward 87 could be any ward in the NHS. We have to question how many wards were allowed to function in a substandard manner.

As a few bad men go, Griffiths was probably the most inept. If you compare Griffiths to say Finlay Scott Ex CEO of the GMC - at least Fin is good looking, slithers away and writes striking emails to me now and then. With Scott, at least you have a certain respect for the sheer amount of wickedness that floats through his veins and lets face it Fin would have made a great James Bond baddy. Fin has better suits, sharper teeth and plots the downfall of others in style. Griffiths by comparison is just a reckless and inept man who actually felt he could get away with all he had done. My friends used to call him the Fool or the Himbo.

Griffiths is just the grubby old medical tramp that medicine sadly elevated up to the sky. I don't actually think the higher echelons of power know why Griffiths was elevated to Godlike status. It just happened. In the end, he relied on his CBE to get him out of a very tight spot.

My teeth grew to full length sometime back. I had my teeth in Griffith's reckless work for some years. Like a good well behaved Yorkshire terrier, I never let him go. Griffiths claims to have been worn down by my anti mobbing tactics. Everyone has choices to make, he could have chosen to correct his position and demand accountability for Ward 87. He didn't do so. The man had two solicitors funded by the Department of Health and large numbers of admin working overtime against just me. Even then, his team lost a Presidential Review at the GMC.

Griffiths posted on this website and is playing Mr Nice Guy. The problem with this old codger is that he essentially suffers from a perceptual misinterpretation of the evidence related to Ward 87. Both him and his entourage of lawyers lied repeatedly through the submissions to the General Medical Council in a complaint against him. At the end of it Ms Zahida Ramzan Asgar of the Department of Health must have had a nose as large as concord. I suppose Old Rodders would say that we can't call it lying because in their world, it is just a defence. The problem with the Department of Health Team representing Griffiths is that they had to use all their background influence to get the complaint thrown out. It didn't happen on the merits of their arguments. It happened because they all struck a nice cushy deal with the General Medical Council. These deals are done by understanding the establishments interests. The GMC dumped the complaint much like the biggest hot potato to hit this baking tray. Later I asked the General Medical Council why they violated their own directive in Henshall by non disclosure of the full 2001 Report. They had nothing left to say. Of course, there isn't anything to say when deals are done, agreements are made and decisions sanctioned to protect the establishment's interests. Griffiths was by no means an innocent man. It just wasn't in the GMC's interests to pursue the complaint. In the end, they both blamed each other like some bad playground fight between two grubby boys.

The GMC complaint against Professor Griffiths originated from Pal v GMC 2004 where the GMC admitted in a statement of truth that it was Professor Griffiths who had raised concerns about my so called mental health. Before he had done his precious audit on Ward 87, he was already questioning my competence, my ability etc. There is a memo showing this. The internal documentation by the GMC is actually quite shocking. The Department of Health internal memos are also quite shocking. Indeed, they show Griffiths prancing around like some court jester telling everyone that there was no evidence to the concerns I raised.

Griffiths created a cleverly constructed audit whose results were opposite to the ones in the Report done in 1998 and 2001. Essentially, Griffiths concluded that there were no evidence to my concerns. To date, he provides us with no explanation of why this was so. He failed to inform the GMC of two reports that verified my concerns. Even when the evidence was thrown in his face and plastered there with superglue, Griffiths failed to apologise for his audit or correct his position. To date, he has never corrected his negligent audit. He still stands by his work.

I was alerted to these reports by Dr Peter Wilmshurst who covertly discussed it over an angiogram with fellow cardiologist Dr John Creamer. Creamer stated that I would never get the report because I was likely to litigate against them as it was so damning. It should be noted that Griffiths did not disclose this 2001 report to me. I obtained it myself under the FOIA legislation. As it is, the full report has never been disclosed by the old men of medicine. Griffiths told the GMC that he had never had prior sight of the report yet he now claims to have been instrumental in the Trust taking action. The combination of pressures from the GMC complaint, the FOIA requests etc suddenly resulted in a mass of documentation land on my lap. Still a lot remains concealed from me. That is what Griffiths was good at doing - concealing everything from me.

Anyhow, here are the allegations at the General Medical Council before the GMC used Griffith's timely retirement as a excuse for not taking action against him. Rod Griffiths essentially got away to this retirement crypt without a stain on his character apart from the one I create now and then. Despite the flawed Griffiths Inquiry in the case of David Southall and his flawed audit in my case, Griffiths was never held accountable by the General Medical Council. In conclusion, in Griffiths case, a Professor can be negligent at his job, cost the lives of many patients, fail to report senior doctors on Ward 87 to the General Medical Council then float onto the wonderful meadows of retirement while claiming to be an innocent man. He can then show us all his bright Colgate smile with high definition sparkle and say " You can do it to, with a CBE".

And that is medicine in the United Kingdom. Where their whistleblowers are dragged through sham peer reviews. Where Professors like Rod Griffiths places the fragile careers of juniors in jeopardy and care nothing about the impact of his actions. Where the same Professor never apologises for his negligent actions. We should ask dear old Rodders, how many people were held accountable for all the good work he purports to have done. The answer is NONE.

There is of course an easy way to encourage me to terminate this type of blogging - that is simply to do the right thing. My view is this - as long as the right thing isn't done, and apologies are not issues and audits not corrected, this kind of blogging will continue against Professor Griffiths and the General Medical Council. They both piss in the same pot after all. Those disgusting enough to refuse to ignite the process of accountability do not deserve any respect at all.

Allegation/charge list at the General Medical Council. Read further here for details.

Professor Griffiths - Annex A
Case reference: HH/FPD/2004/1056

That being registered under the Medical Act 1983 (as amended),

1. In April 2000, you were a Regional Director of Public Health for the West Midlands;

2. You were asked by the GMC to lead an investigation into allegations made to it earlier that month by Dr Pal of malpractice and sub-standard facilities and care at the City General Hospital in Stoke-on-Trent (“the hospital”), especially on ward 87, part of the University Hospital of North Staffordshire NHS Trust (“the Trust”), where she had worked as a doctor;

3. In January 2001 your report concluded, broadly, that Dr Pal’s allegations were misplaced;

4. a. On 27 April 2000, in the context of your investigation, you met Sarah Bedwell of the GMC and made the following, or similar, statements:

“[Dr Pal] should possibly have been more competent and knowledgeable than she appears to have been.”

“It may be that some of the problems arose because her own performance was sub-standard.”

b. You made these statements even though you had not investigated Dr Pal’s performance as a doctor;

c. At the same or another meeting with Sarah Bedwell and/or other GMC staff you raised concerns about Dr Pal’s physical and/or mental health, although you had not investigated this;

d. All/any of those three statements were dishonest and/or reckless and/or careless because you had not taken reasonable steps to verify them or put yourself in a position properly to assess Dr Pal’s competence or knowledge as a doctor or her physical and/or mental health,

e. By making these statements, you purposely sought to undermine and/or discredit Dr Pal,

f. Accordingly, you acted contrary to paragraphs 34, 35 and 51 of Good Medical Practice;

5. a. Your report’s conclusions about the practices and the standards of facilities and care of patients at the hospital were wrong and you dishonestly and/or recklessly and/or carelessly misled the GMC in this regard,

b. In particular, no reasonable doctor could have concluded that EP had not been neglected while a patient (especially from reading merely her medical records): see, especially, page 18, paragraph 33b of New Doctor,

c. Your intention was to undermine and/or discredit Dr Pal rather than to consider the evidence and report objectively,

d. Accordingly, you acted contrary to paragraph 34, 35 and 51 of Good Medical Practice.

6. a. In a letter dated 17 January 2005, submitted to the GMC on your behalf by Zahida Ramzan-Asghar, it was stated in relation to the missing drip set needed by Dr Pal to treat Evelyn Price that:

“An alternative available to the Complainant (i.e. Dr Pal) was to call a crash team herself and not leave the patient. The crash team would have had a drip set and would have provided more experience.”

b. This statement was misleading as you knew, or should have known, that crash teams do not routinely carry drip sets and it is contrary to accepted protocol to summon a crash team when the patient is not suffering from actual cardiac or respiratory arrest;

7. a. Your report was flawed by an undisclosed conflict of interest as it was in your interests and/or the interests of bodies for which you worked for your report to conclude, broadly, that Dr Pal’s allegations were misplaced. The more your report was critical of NHS practices or personnel, the more likely it was that NHS funds would be withheld or limited;

b. In particular, the conflict of interest arose through, and/or was accentuated by, your close association with Professor John Temple (the then Postgraduate Dean of the West Midlands Deanery), your involvement with the Service Increment for Teaching (“SIFT”) Joint Planning Committee and the threat posed by Dr Pal’s allegations to the hospital’s planned application for Pre Registration House Officer (PRHO) rotation,

c. Accordingly, you acted contrary to paragraphs 54 and 55 of Good Medical Practice;
8. a. You and the Trust accepted that there had been some deficiencies in practices, facilities and care of patients at the hospital, especially on ward 87, although you considered that efforts had been made to address them,
b. Nonetheless you dishonestly and/or recklessly and/or carelessly failed to mention and/or stress those acknowledged deficiencies in your report,
c. Your report ignored and/or minimised these deficiencies,
d. Accordingly, you acted contrary to paragraphs 26-27 of Good Medical Practice.

Under Construction :)

2009-11-10T16:00:00.000-08:00

Ward 87 is currently undergoing some cosmetic surgery. Normal service will resume soonish.

Medical Mobbing

2009-11-08T04:28:00.000-08:00

Oh Yeah.
Well, Some Whistleblowers End up Stamping on Your Toes - and hard.

Hospital Doctor has recently featured the issue of Mobbing. Doctors4Justice provides a good list of links. Neither provide a solution to mobbing at all.

Mobbing in the medical arena is known as Sham Peer Review. Huntoon describes it very well indeed.

This is the typical manner of Sham Peer Review ie Medical Mobbing

"Facing superior power and numbers, the targeted physician soon understands that he is the prey and the hunt is on. The final attack is often unleashed quite suddenly and with great fury. The resultant shock and awe often causes a sudden loss of energy and a mental numbness that impairs the physician victim’s ability to defend himself effectively. This often further excites the predators as the deer stands motionless, caught in the headlights. Shock and awe is followed quickly by denial and disbelief.

This is frequently accompanied by a strong belief that the truth will save the victim and set him free. Meanwhile, the stigma attached to mere allegations of wrongdoing produces an intended isolation of the targeted physician. As a result, the physician victim often shuns contact with colleagues, further assisting the predators in cutting the prey out from the herd in preparation for the kill.

At this stage, alone and isolated, facing almost certain demise, extreme fear sets in. How will the physician provide for his spouse and children? How will he cope with the bills that are mounting up now that the attack has stopped cash flow?How will he survive? Constantly living in an adrenaline-soaked fight-or-flight state further depletes the victim’s energy and is often accompanied by significant depression, complete with severe sleep disturbance (too much or too little), weight loss, and a pervasive feeling of helplessness and hopelessness. The risk of “death by stress” or suicide is very real at this stage"

I should say that over the years, I have been subject to medical mobbing. My case meets all the criteria set for medical mobbing. It commenced in North Staffordshire NHS Trust when the Trust told the world that there was no evidence basis to my concerns. Having lied to the media [ and oh yes, I have the press release from Hospital To Stoke Radio], this mode of Sham Peer Review continued to the GMC.

Despite 2 internal Trust reports verifying that I was indeed right, the GMC hired Professor Rod Griffiths to say that there was no evidential basis to my concerns and I must therefore be mentally deranged. The two reports were concealed from me and a decade later, the full report has never been released. They only managed to release a redacted report.

Griffiths was caught with his pants down, subjected to a four year investigation by the GMC and because the GMC itself was involved in the mobbing, they let Professor Griffiths go. Of course, the GMC made some comments that were designed to placate me but in the end there was no accountability for a man who cost the lives of those on Ward 87, who smeared mud onto my name, who damaged my employment prospects irreparably and a man who consistently lied to the General Medical Council on many aspects of Ward 87. A master of word play, Professor Rod Griffiths is a silent and deadly mobber. The GMC was asked to correct his Sham study following the disclosure of the 1999 and 2001 reports. A year ago, they stated that they would consider it but do not have the guts to respond.

After whistleblowing, it was the free season for everyone else to join in the free party of mobbing. The latest being Worcestershire NHS Trust. It is quite easy, they discover you are a whistleblower and sidle up to the GMC to assist them in your downfall. The fact they miss out is that one of these days, their favours to the GMC will reverse onto them much like a fireball of paper.

Huntoon in his paper above provides no solution to mobbing. Actually no one has a solution to Medical Mobbing. Well, I have discovered an excellent solution. I recognized what was happening to me in about 2003. In that year, I also decided that sitting around being a good little girl wasn't going to do me any good. It was at that point that I discovered the perfect way to retaliate. My method of retaliation is developed from the Chinese way of battle tactics. You do your research to perfection, you plan your mode of action, you then attack using the same tactics used on you.

Everything done onto you should be reversed back on your attacker but this time with 10 fold magnified power. Indeed, this is how I have conducted myself for a while - I am free from mobbing now. I think I have survived relatively well - because I have never been sanctioned [ as the mobbers would have wished] and any criticism of me happens in underground whispers because few have the guts to face me head on.

Hardly anyone is prepared to challenge the issues around Ward 87. They all pathetically say "well it's all too late now" and make some snide remarks about my demeanor. Well, I am neither interested in comments about my demeanor nor am I interested in the incompetence of all authorities within the UK. I am though interested in being free to lead my life - free from mobbing. The decade spent in medicine can be said to be some of the worst years of my entire life.

It is a well known fact that the General Medical Council is used as a mobbing tool for many doctors that Trusts dislike. The GMC as a mobber is a dangerzone because this regulatory body has the resources and lawyers to assassinate you. The GMC was enlisted into colluding with North Staffordshire NHS Trust and were quite happy to act as Mobber by proxy. As the GMC have found though, this junior doctor hasn't gone away quietly.

I believe the GMC assume that I make a number of complaints for fun because I have nothing better to do. Well, everything I have always done is a tactical move in what I need to achieve. I figured, if Trusts used the GMC as a mobbing tool then so could I.

I have always achieved what I have set out to do. A good tactician uses all that is available to them as their weapons of mass destruction in the case of Medical Mobbing. And this sounds a little rabid but when you are mid Medical Mobbing and being mobbed from all directions - you do what you have to do in self defense.

I am though a survivor of quite severe mobbing in terms of the Sham Peer Review conducted on me. I think recovery is difficult but not impossible. I believe my only problem these days lies in the fact that I overwork and have no idea how to rest. It is just a minor remnant after 6 years of retaliation tactics. It is a fact of life, no human being can sustain long term mobbing. This is also a fact that everyone must understand as a limitation of ones self as a human being. I suspect a second minor issue is my intolerance for people I dislike. It is probably because I have this belief that life is too short to fill it with pointless people. Mobbing makes you an independent soul. While others have the desire for people or to please those around them, I don't.

If your aim is to retaliate - do it without emotion and with absolute precision to your arguments. Everyone should remember, through each mode of action raised- whether it is by complaints or whatever - a new piece of information will come your way. It is with that new piece of information that you can progress forward.

In my case, the massive four year complaint against Professor Griffiths forced the GMC, the Department of Health and the Trust to hand over the 2001 Reports about me or at least tell me that reports existed that verified by concerns were correct. It was at that point, my fortunes turned around. Without that complaint, I never would have been cleared.

Professor Griffiths had nothing more to say because the pathetic little senile old bat from the Labour Government creepily tried to placate me by saying that what I had done had changed the DNR policies in 2000 via the Department of Health. Well, big deal eh. Having mobbed me, tried to damage my employment prospects, having strategically mounted a character assassinating campaign against me, he makes noises to try and placate me! Griffiths and his Department of Health cronies are responsible for untold damage through the files there. Many admitted they wanted to "set an example" using me.

The GMC made the excuse that Griffiths had " suddenly retired" and prosecution would not be in the interests of the public. Of course, no one asked the public this question. By using these tactics, the authorities have shut the issue down. Of course, unfortunately for them, it isn't quite shut down. Their efforts to assassinate my reputation within the media is something they do with glee. Of course, I am fully aware that the media refuse to feature the issues of Ward 87. It isn't my loss because those who act malevolently often have a equally disastrous future ahead of them. The issue isn't about Dr Rita Pal, it is about a Ward that the UK neglected and innocent people died - but no one found out why. The problem with those who feed the media with rubbish and the media itself - is that it focusses on the manufactured persona of Rita Pal as opposed to the actual facts of the case. It is a very easy and clever way to distract journalists from the actual evidence base that affects UK healthcare.

North Staffordshire NHS Trust have nothing to say either because they look utterly stupid 10 years later. Having mobbed me as a group, no one was held accountable despite the manner in which they had attempted to victimise me. Their efforts to leave me for dead didn't work of course because at each point in the future, they will be the ones under the microscope. They have no answers to their misdemeanors.

The GMC remains broadly silent stuttering each time someone asks them about Ward 87. The Department of Health has gagged itself on these subjects because again they have nothing to say. The same goes for every single Member of Parliament approached on this. Each party has nothing left to say or any solutions. The Health Commission avoids the issue completely. You start talking to them about 1998 -2005 and they quote 2005-2008 as the years that have no concern.

Each finds it extremely difficult to understand why I am not in a corner squealing away like a victim. What am I supposed to do - cry about it? I suppose that is what every single whistleblower is supposed to do - be a victim then moan to the media about how the Trust is "Picking on them". Well, you either do that or you either get equal.

I got equal - because the world does not have a solution to medical mobbing - only the whistleblower in the thick of it is intelligent enough to develop a strategic maneuver to defend themselves. The bottom line - you either develop a solution or your sink. The fact is no one is going to develop a solution for you. They may offer you tea and sympathy but this isn't a solution. Of course, there are always side effects to developing an anti mobbing plan and executing it.

Because the rest of the world [ particularly journalists] do not have the depth to understand what you are doing - it is perceived as odd behavior or making trouble or a campaign of some kind. Few will consider it a defense to mass mobbing. And no one can persuade a straight line thinker about a defense to mobbing which requires lateral thought. I have never tried to persuade a straight lined thinker of my own development of a defense to mobbing.

I think this defense is very effective. It is tried and tested many many times over. It is simply that most victims will quite happily hope that some white knight will come and save them. Of course, there are no white knights in the world. Those who do not understand this methodology conceptually will always make judgments. That is what people who are shortsighted do. That I believe is probably the only minor side effect - but then after you have been through medical mobbing and survived well, people who lack depth mean nothing. Their opinions are also brushed off in a few seconds. One simply has to pity them for their lack of understanding about complex matters and move onto more interesting things.

Don't for one minute think that Members of Parliament have enough balls to even resolve the problems at all. Most may have been educated in Eton - but they have the problem solving ability of a small pot bellied pig. It involves snouting in the trough and making excuses for said snouting. I make that comment of leaders of all parties who have been next to useless in my case although they do make interesting supportive noises while doing nothing constructive.

The Cosmetic World of Jonathan Gornall.

2009-11-02T03:42:00.000-08:00

Jonathan and I go back a long time. In the hay day of Ward 87, Jonathan felt it wasn't "media friendly" and subsequently ignored the legitimate concerns I raised on Ward 87. Jonathan can now be seen to be tarting himself up for the BMJ. Whistleblowing is all the rage and Jonathan decided to pitch in to the BMJ about it.

In all honesty, Jon has cared nothing for patient safety or the issues of whistleblowing since the dawn of time. Everyone can see for himself what his articles have consisted of. His personal life has pushed him in the direction of child protection.

Now that his subject has been struck off, this PACA member now parades his pen in the BMJ. He ironically calls his piece " The Price of Silence". What is the Price of Silence Jonathan? How about explanining to the world why Ward 87 and its patients were never sexy enough to write about. Jon has no explanation for this of course bar the fact he has always been a judgmental git with a posh accent and not much depth. Despite Penny Mellor's protestations regarding Jonathan, I ignored her for a long time until I found out for myself what a vacant pathetic man he really was. While Mellor and I differ on many aspects, we agree on two issues, one is Jonathan Gornall and the other is the non declaration of conflicts of interests on papers written by PACA members. There were promises of declaration but as Mellor kindly pointed out recently, these declarations were not forthcoming. In the world of research, this would lead to an element of bias. Essentially, the vested interests by the authors on a number of papers make the quality of the papers questionable and tainted. As everyone will know, Wakefield is being tried at the GMC for his non declaration of interests. In summary, while Mellor remains an enemy, I will have to agree with her on these two points.

Gornall has been intimately involved with PACA raising questions as to the extent of his independence. This is what Jonathan told me about associating with issues of patient safety listed on both websites.

"It is not a question of my getting on with you or not. Surely you must see that as a journalist I cannot associate with the views and actions of a campaigner such as yourself, and that it would be entirely inappropriate for me to be linked with the style and intemperate nature of the material you post on your website?"

"Journalism is my livelihood. Credibility is important to me"

While explaining his requirements to be "independent", he happily joined PACA and failed to declare his interests in all his articles related to child protection. Having said this, we found him on the PACA 's exclusive membership mailing lists. We also found him associating freely with all doctors on PACAs list. The above is the kind of crap that is spread around by most journalists. They are happy to use material from our websites but sit in judgment of it. Given most of the NHS Exposed website is written by patients, relatives and doctors on issues of patient safety, I find it insulting that their stories can be degraded in such a way. I know Jon and his mates consider my style of writing to be unacceptable and this style appears to cloud all issues concerning the actual importance of patient safety. The focus again is on style and not the factual element presented. He presents me as a " campaigner" failing to understand a fact of life - I was never a campaigner but a writer of the medical aspects of whistleblowing.

After this discovery, David Southall forced Jonathan Gornall to apologise to me possibly to prevent episodes like this that counter the interests of PACA and David Southall. Jonathan limply apologised. Of course, a limp apology like that does not make him a man. Real men would never run a life of double standards in the first place. I understood on that day that Jonathan may have all the cosmetics but there was more integrity in a man who worked collecting the dustbins.

We should all say quite frankly that he epitomises the typical journalist who works for high brow newspapers and thinks he can judge whistleblowers by his own narrow minded yardstick. He certainly judged me in ways I would never have expected. Then to Jon, it is the cosmetics that count. Patient safety has meant nothing to him but he was quite happy to spend his time looking down his large and pointy nose making judgments against those of us who do work tirelessly to maintain patient safety. In his piece, he laments over gagging clauses. Again, as mentioned previously he is jumping the bandwagon of all journalists so they can now place whistleblowers in that "victim whistleblowing" bowl and remain blameless. The real gagging clauses are provided by newspapers who prevent whistleblowers from raising their concerns publicly. This is done indirectly by simply never featuring the story. I cannot blame the NHS litigation team for implementing gagging clauses - its a commercial decision and the NHS is a commercial organisation.

Let's ask the question again - how many whistleblowers have journalists ignored because their faces do not fit ? What is the price of this gag implemented by newspapers and how many patients have been killed as a result? We only have to look at Gosport to count them all.

Yes, I dislike journalists because I know them to be unethical conceited arrogant people with no concern regarding patient safety at all. They are concerned about "money" and getting their story in print. As people they tend to be unintelligent, vacant, devoid of human emotion, are of the view that only they are right and everyone else is wrong and are incapable of finding fault with themselves. Most journalists are immoral creatures. They pride themselves as those who believe in the truth and justice. In reality, their articles are merely controlled spin. I say this from long discussions with many journalists who have purposely shut down not mine but various other whistleblowers/patients in the last decade.

This is the reason I have no time for any of them. As the readers of the blog will note, I have no time for journalists and lets face it, I don't need them either.

Independent on Sunday. Creating a Media illusion

2009-11-01T23:38:00.000-08:00

Jobbing Doctor who kindly watches out of these stories thought of me and sent the article penned by Nina Lakhani .

Nina and I have had dealings. Nina would rather that these issues be forgotten but I find it rather entertaining to watch journalists eat their own words for tea. As Jobbing Doctor is aware, I dislike most journalists. I believe a large number of them fail to educate themselves on the issues they are supposed to write about. They are also unaccountable for the usual crap they write. They also have a sense of arrogance that doesn't actually suit their intellectual inferiority. This term is used for journalists who fail to review an issue with a 360 degree view. The Independent and Nina threatened to sue me in libel for "linking" to any Independent articles whilst adding my own commentary. This is what she said after apparently taking legal advice

"If you include links to the articles on our website, that is okay unless they think the site is libellous and then they will ask for it to be removed"

Noting this element of legal bullshit being thrown my way, I asked Nina what case law she was relying upon. She went on to say

"I am trying to deal with about 15 things at one time"

She then went onto say

"I cannot get into a row with the lawyers about this, I have to follow there advice"

I pressed her on the case law and legal precedent yet again. She wrote

"I have to leave the office now, will see to this tomorrow. But the lawyer at no point suggested the website was libellous, it was a general statement about websites that use our links, if they are thought to be libellous, we'll remove the link"

I then wrote :-

If statements are made by your paper, then they have to have the logic to verify it. Each time I have asked you to justify your reasoning [ or your legal team's reasoning], you have backed off on your original statements further and further. As I explained, this isn't about angering anyone but about analysing your paper's reasoning.

I am happy to send your legal team a letter to the effect that I would like to request their reasoning. I have requested their address and email so I can communicate with them directly. You have not yet provided it. It is against Law Society's guidance to mislead anyone. I am sure your legal team are aware of that.

In the event there was no reasoning and links cannot be removed from "libellous" websites then I am owed an apology. It is quite disturbing that a leading paper would wish to mislead a member of the public

The Independent journalist and their collection of highly paid lawyers were then cornered, Nina backed down. This is after various admissions that she had sought legal advice.

"Oh my god, they were my words, not theirs, I said it wrong obviously, and I have already apologised, happy to do so again"

Anyhow, we I certainly believe that the Independent lawyers attempted to mislead me. Having got caught with their pants down, Nina attempted to subvert the issue but making statements that I was apparently emotive about the issue. That is her view but then she has a narrow mindset. Nina expected to mislead me and get away with it. She assumed that I, being a person who was a doctor and whistleblower didn't know the finer points of legal terminology or the law. Of course, defamation law was taught to her by her lecturers on her course in journalism. We therefore expect her to know what she is saying to people.

Nevertheless, Nina was caught in the cross winds and decided not to feature Ward 87. Thats no skin off my nose really - it is absolutely fine if Nina wishes to side line the deaths of hundreds of patients and evidence based reports due to a catastrophic failure of her own ability to be honest. Her nose is out of joint and I can't blame her really. This is what happens when you attempt to bullshit those who can read.

The whistleblowing article written for the Independent on Sunday is a illusion. It is an illusion because it isn't evidence based and heavily influenced by Public Concern at Work. It shows a distinct failure in Nina to be able to research a present a proper piece of hard hitting evidence based material for a high brow newspaper. Here was the Independent on Sunday's first article. They are bashing on about gagging clauses. Of course, the Independent on Sunday fails to understand succinctly that it is open to the whistleblower not to sign on the dotted line agreeing to a gagging clause. Secondly, gagging clauses are part and parcel of average litigation. If the NHS is paying out money in a compensation claim, they are entitled to seek a gagging clause as part of the litigation process. The whistleblower doesn't have to settle for a gagging clause - I certainly didn't bring a action against North Staffordshire NHS Trust because I knew that litigation is all about gagging clauses.

The second article is "NHS Paying Millions To Gag Whistleblowers". The title is interesting because Nina has failed to quantitify the figures.

So firstly, if whistleblowers are going to be greedy and decide to sue for compensation then what do they honestly expect lawyers to do? Do they really and honestly expect lawyers to "Pay Out" then get screwed in the media? This isn't legal business. It isn't the way lawyers conduct themselves. There is a real absence of a legal view in the article presented. Gags are part of a normal process of litigation. Its called "business".

Nina goes onto say

"The IoS has learnt of children in Stoke-on-Trent needlessly losing organs after safety issues highlighted by a senior surgeon – who was suspended after coming forward to voice concerns – were ignored. In one of more than 20 serious incidents, a newborn baby girl needed an ovary removed after a standard procedure to remove a cyst was delayed because of staff shortages"

Now this is interesting because this is neither a verifiable whistleblowing case and neither have any reports internally or externally ruled for this surgeon. The evidence base is speculative and essentially one sided. This is the Express report and as everyone can see, these are a string of allegations with no verification of evidence by any report internally or externally.

Then we discover who is behind the article, the Labour Influenced Charity " Public Concern at Work". This organisation told me sometime ago that PIDA legislation actually worked and that whistleblowing was safe.

"According to Public Concern at Work (PCaW), two-thirds of doctors, nurses and other careworkers are accepting non-disclosure clauses built into severance agreements, in order to avoid years of suspension, financial ruin, incriminations and distress before a case reaches court. The details of these claims, including allegations of dangerous practice, dishonesty and misconduct, are never disclosed to the public"

Errrrm, they don't have to accept non disclosure clauses. There is a word such as "no". PCAW has also failed and silenced many whistleblowers themselves.

"However, judges are also failing the public by agreeing to NHS gagging orders when presiding over whistleblower cases in court"

Are they? A consent order is usually agreed by the parties and sealed by the judge. Non disclosure clauses are built into any commercial agreement. Nina shows us no evidence or reports where judges have actually "failed" in their job in litigation. We see no interview with the leader in Employment Tribunals etc despite the details of International Whistleblowing Conference held at the Middlesex University.

Peter Gooderam who is not an expert in PIDA makes some interesting yet pointless noises in the Independent newspaper. Again, he fails to mention the leading research in PIDA and the leading case by Ian Perkn on the failure of PIDA.

She then moves to Peter Wilmshurst libel case.

"The doctor, now broke, exhausted, career in tatters, had no option but to accept the terms, even though it means the public will never find out what happened"

Everyone has an option. There is an option of saying "no".

There is some portrayal that whistleblowers are helpless little victims who want everything their way. Sadly, this is not the business of litigation. Lawyers have a job to do - if you want the money - you have to have the gag. If you don't want the money - you don't have to accept the gag.

The GMC and I have done business on these aspects and never quite managed a gag but I recognise the give and take scenario. We know about litigation and its pitfalls. I never expected to have global rights to everything - you simply have to accept the way litigation works. Mediation, arbitration and litigation is all about giving and taking. To expect money in the legal world and expect publicity/freedom is probably a little unrealistic. There is no point moaning about it because the legal instrument is a blunt one. There is no such thing as a free ticket in NHS related litigation.

Many ask me why I never sued North Staffordshire NHS Trust. Well it is because I did not want to be caught in the litigation game. Money in my pocket and I suppose I could have had millions would have meant, I could have never raises these issues or talked about them in public. In the end, that was far more important than compensation - that is my view. In any event, North Staffordshire NHS Trust have never been able to control me no matter what they have done.

In the end, you either feel strongly about the issue you raise and go the whole way or you simply settle on a gagging clause and hold your tongue. In my view the choices are very simple. It is PCAW and various whistleblowing clients who view PIDA with rose tinted spectacles. PIDA is a faulty legislation that will never work until it is repealed. You would have to be short sighted to sue under it as a whistleblower.

Nina ends by presenting two cases that have no independently verified evidence based reports. The better tact to have used was the impact on a lack of protection of whistleblowers on patient death rates. Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust is one piece of data and Gosport Memorial Hospital is another piece of evidence based data. This combined with Dave Lewis's research shows us what a disaster zone we are in. It also shows us the negative impact of these failures on Human Life.

So overall, Nina's cobbled together piece as written for the Independent concentrated broadly on speculative gossip as propagated by PCAW. It is badly researched piece that potrays whistleblowers to be victims who deserve money and publicity when this is a unrealistic view for anyone involved in litigation. I don't blame Nina though because she probably spoke to a number of doctors or health professionals who have felt hard done by.

The key in whistleblowing is not to resort to PIDA litigation. Secondly, one must never expect to get money and get to publicise matters of patient safety. This just doesn't happen in the real world of high powered litigation. The NHS is a commercial superpower who makes deals like every business. The NHS cares about its reputation. One cannot blame it for wishing to protect its reputation. It is selfish and wrong and we dislike the NHS for it - but this isn't about justice 0 it is about economics, business and litigation.

And yes, its really bad and really unfair but hey, welcome to the real world. Lawyers don't give money for free and they also have a job to protect satellite litigation. Lawyers aren't interested in justice. They are interested in being paid, getting the best result for their client and reducing future risks. That is their job. The Independent on Sunday is criticising the job of a lawyer. If that is the case, the ways of litigation conducted for hundreds of years have to be changed. That is an unresonable expectation.

The Independent and other newspapers portray these gagging clauses to be some abnormal feature of litigation. Well, it isn't the case that patient litigants are gagged daily when they request compensation claims. Not one doctor will say anything about that affecting patient safety issues. So let us start by removing gagging clauses from the 18.2 million pound compensation claims in the NHS. That poses a greater risk to patient safety than the low level PIDA claims. It is simply that public sector workers are of the view that only they suffer and that only they whistleblow. In reality, the main indicator of patient safety problems in the NHS is monitored by patient complaints. Whether we like it or not, this is true. Gagging these aspects of litigation causes far more extensive harm to patient safety.

Of course, the biggest silencer to whistleblowing are leading newspapers who hardly feature legitimate concerns raised by many whistleblower thereby providing their own supergag. The Independent does not tell us how many whistleblowers they opted not to feature. I am though aware of a few of them. We can commence by referring to their reluctance to feature Ward 87 :). The matter becomes rather different when Nina is found prowling around our website http://www.nhsexposed.com in search of material. One may use our research but it is obviously too much for the posh journalists of the Independent on Sunday to acknowledge the importance of an evidence based verified report on a ward that had hundreds of deaths. It simply becomes a personality clash - between myself and the Journalist who attempted to mislead me. I am not the only person who has found this difficulty with the media - many whistleblowers have.

Right, the Independent On Sunday can now sue me for "linking" to their article :). Let us test that legal theory out and see what kind of gagging clause they wish to implement :)/

The Cinderella Effect

2009-10-29T08:31:00.000-07:00

David Taylor MP
£347 for a toad's stool

I like Professor David Lewis. I came across him quite by accident much like the news concerning the secretive parliamentary meetings about whistleblowers [ with no whistleblowers invited]. That is the good thing about having your finger on the pulse and having access to huge levels of information from all kinds of sources. We can all assure ourselves, if it is happening, I am going to know about it. I always compare whistleblowers to Cinderella. They are never invited to the ball. People though quite happily talk about them as if they are objects to be researched in a goldfish bowl. That is of course Lewis' job. He has made a name out of placing all kinds of whistleblowers into goldfish bowls so they can be analysed. We are fodder for his research. And he does do some excellent research. 5 years of PIDA can be read here. 10 Years of PIDA can be read here. Dave has the leading research for this Act.

David has written a number of research papers on whistleblowing and the Public Interest Disclosure Act. Some of his chapters are viewed in Whistleblowing at Work. Here is David wallowing at Middlesex University. He likes to hang out with important people and was lucky enough to get the gold invitation card to David Taylor MP's cosmetic effort at dealing with whisteblowing. This was attended by the "chosen ones". You have to be "chosen" because that is the way the world works. This is the Labour government. They have to be "seen" to be doing something about the future. In reality nothing has ever been done. Consultations are held with tame individuals to make interesting noises.

David attends a lot of meetings and events where he talks intellectually about intellectual things. That is because he is an intellectual. We know this because his hair has gone curly grey and anyone with that symptom is by default superbly intelligent. I like Dave as a person although after our exchange and challenge today, he may opt never to speak to me again :). Today's discussion was a bit naughty with the intention of solely extracting his view on the government's position on PIDA. I managed to achieve that. It was done because I believe the public and NHS workers are owed the truth about the effectiveness of PIDA.

Anyhow, this is how Dave and I first came across each other. I fell upon the International Whistleblowing Conference and asked for an invite many months ago. I told Dave that I really didn't want to spend excessive amounts of money because technically whistleblowers who have had their careers assassinated cannot afford to throw around their money. I was invited to the intro talk. So, Dave expected me to travel 100 miles plus to sit through a 30 minute talk. I had better things to do of course than sit around on a short talk on material I knew already. At 250 quid a pop, I felt it was daylight robbery. Anyhow,the meeting took place and Dave promised to send me all the lectures. What he did send me was just his lecture. That was his good deed for mankind.

So effectively Dave and I have been in touch for quite sometime. You would think Dave who knew I was a whistleblower and who offered to collect my tale for his goldfish research purposes would have informed me of the meeting in July 2009. David didn't inform me of the meeting. Lets face it, I was a little peeved about it. I suspect in Dave's mind, there was only one whistleblower and that was Margaret Haywood. He has no response as to why he failed to inform me. Perhaps he was busy - because that is the issue with Dave - like everyone he is always busy. He must be the busiest man on earth probably because the rest of us aren't busy - or so he may assume.

In our discussions today via email, the flamboyant Dr Aubrey Blumsohn who is currently having his whistleblowing episode baring fruit at the GMC, weighed in. Aubrey and I have never seen eye to eye since he dumped me into the GMC following his efforts with Lisa Blakemore Brown. Nevertheless, I have a great deal of respect for some of Aubrey's material and the work he has done. Aubrey doesn't mince his words. He never has.

He wrote

----- Original Message -----
From: "Aubrey Blumsohn"
To:
Cc: "Gillian M Bean" <>; "Rita Pal"
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:02 PM
Subject: Whistleblowers

Dear Adrian

Are you the organiser of this rather wonderful whistleblowers meeting (with no whistleblowers invited) meeting at the HoC?

http://ward87.blogspot.com/2009/10/whistleblowing-secret-meeting-at-houses.html.

If so, what supreme irony that your motley "network" would actually participate in removing a voice from the unheard individuals...

Very well done indeed .......

Best

Aubrey Blumsohn

It is clear that Aubrey is the third Cinderella in this meeting on whistleblowers. It is clear that even Dr Blumsohn a very high profile whistleblower was not invited to a discussion on whistleblowing held by David Taylor MP. I already discussed the fact that Mr Ian Perkin, the man with the case on the failings of PIDA was the second Cinderella.

So who was invited? Let us see - The lady with the largest mouth in Britain is Gillian Bean. Gillian runs SIN. SIN is where you obtain tea and sympathy for your problems. With a name like SIN and a surname for the lead parliamentary researcher as Crimes, you know its Labour's best Citizen's Jury. You can read about Citizen Juries as described by the excellent Focal Spot. He suggests as follows

"The location of the meeting was kept secret until three days before the event and when this consultant was eventually told the location and turned up in Birmingham for the "Citizens Jury" it turned out that medical staff were outnumbered 2:1 by laypeople specifically chosen by an agency to attend the event"

Then

"Following the "consultation" the medical delegates were told to leave but the other 2/3 of the audience were kept back and each given an envelope. My colleague was intrigued by this and managed to catch one of the "chosen ones" and ask about the contents. Each envelope contained £75 in cash!"

Now that we know the way in which the government operates, we know what consultations like these may entail.

Gillian Bean is well spoken, articulates with a clothes peg stuck on her nose and makes the right noises with the right people. Having met her, there is a little bit missing in that skull of hers. Perhaps it is intelligence or perhaps it is a total lack of education in matters related to medicine. There is something amiss though. I know that Gillian likes to make an impression, be with the famous and be famous herself. That is what people do when they have nothing to show for themselves.The problem with fame is that you lose track of reality.

Gillian once invited me for coffee at her house and boy does he make lousy coffee for a well cultured lady. It was a lovely house with lovely things. You can tell a lot about the manner in which things are symmetrical and one has to be a lady to be invited by Parliament. Nothing wrong with ladies of course - there are simply those who are cosmetic enhancements to the system and those who are intelligent. Gillian is a cosmetic enhancement. She always reminded me of Hyacinth but then Gillian likes to keep up appearances. The problem with Gillian is that her hot air tends to spread widely. As she will be acutely aware, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Mine may well be 9 years late but I have a photographic memory which always assists.

I have nothing great to say about Gillian because she isn't a patient advocate who impressed me at all. I believe both Will Powell and Arpad Toth are better and more intelligent advocates but again were never invited despite having the two leading cases in medical neglect. I always worry about the reason why Ann Reeves campaigner against Gosport Memorial Hospital was never invited. Ann after all has the 1991 document on the failure of the system to take notice of a whistleblower in the case of Jane Barton. I wonder why these leaders in patient advocacy are side lined.

Gillian makes the right noises and attends many meetings because she likes to be important but in reality she is a poor problem solver and possibly gossips too much. Then no one is perfect.

No doubt she will be at another meeting tottering in her high heels and guffawing with all those who feel they make any difference to the NHS or the patient population. In reality I believe the real work in the patient world has been done by Will Powell, Arpad and Ann Reeves but these individuals are of towering intellect who are not Labour's poodles.

The bottom line is - Gillian knows nothing about whistleblowing because she has not experienced it. She may have had dealings with Steve Bolsin but all her information is second and third hand. It is a sad fact of life that we have had the Shipman Inquiry and Bristol Inquiry with numerous gold fish studies and theories on whistleblowers - but no changes that have improved the circumstances for any whistleblower in this country.

In the meantime, Dave Lewis has been offended by a purposeful remark made by me in our discussions today. As previously narrated, I needed to extract David's view on the government's position. I predicted that Dave was a little bit of a diva because all professors are. They care not for tangible things but of appearances. As predicted, Prince Dave came running in demanding an apology from me.

He told me

"If I have spoken publicly about the Government (and Opposition’s) misguided view of the legislation"

I was asked to apologise for the misleading comment that he had remained silent during the government spin. I have told Dave that he should particularise the papers, events, speeches so that we can publicise this online. I also emphasised that no one in the NHS actually knows about his research and that we are always wrongly told that PIDA works. I suggested that on provision of his speeches and subsequent publication, I shall issue him with a formal apology. After that offer, we could all hear a pin drop in the email conversation. I suspect the above is the best we are going to get from Prof Dave. You never know, when he gets over the fact that he was out maneuvered today, he may provide us with legitimate public speeches and documents were he has criticised the government. I believe these outright admissions are required in public because they deserve the truth about the current position of PIDA. It is grossly unfair for NHS workers to be under the illusion that PIDA works and that it is safe to whistleblow. The fact is, it is dangerous to whistleblow and as Dave Lewis points out, PIDA isn't effective.

While these important people discuss us and make decisions on what is best for us - no one has understood the actual problems faced by those in the firing line ie the whistleblowers. We remain uninvited guests, a flies on the wall and we are blamed for being a little irritable that secret meetings take place about us - without so much as informing us. Dr Blumsohn, I and Ian Perkin merely are observers at the side lines while decisions are made about us.

In the meantime, David Taylor MP has had an unfortunate accident with a frog. Apparently it jumped into his throat and that is the reason he is unable to answer the question - why were no whistleblowers ever invited? There has been a long silence.

By comparison, when it comes to tax payers money, he was happy to spend it on his toadstool.

It has been revealed that MP David Taylor has claimed nearly s8,000 in second home expenses since 2004, including new kitchen cupboards and shelves for s2,280, a s100 weekly food allowance when he was in Westminster, his television licence, an s800 TV and set-top box, three rugs totalling s900, a s1,200 bed, a s215 DVD player, s240 worth of pictures.

He also claimed for a s1,500 chair but this was deemed too expensive and knocked down to s995 and a claim for a s347 footstool was struck off as being too extravagant.

A man of integrity chairing the whistleblower meeting!? Gosh.

Whistleblowing : Secret Meeting at the Houses of Parliament.

2009-10-26T18:12:00.000-07:00

As I am a news hub for most things in the NHS, a nice lady told me about a meeting she had attended on Whistleblowing. The most interesting aspect of this meeting on the 7.7.09 is that no whistleblowers were invited. I emailed Ian Perkin of St Georges fame and he wrote back telling me he didn't know anything about it. And there we have it, a secret meeting held without any proper notes, no whistleblower was informed about it - but the NETWORK apparently make decisions about whistleblowers. One of the better decisions was to invite PIDA expert Dave Lewis. The idea of course is to establish some kind of forum concerning issues related to whistleblowing. All well and good bar the fact that no one told the whistleblowers about it. I went through a interesting journey in attempting to obtain details of the minutes. This is what I was told by Parliament

"The information you require is not held by the House of Commons. Information held by individual Members is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the House has no access to such information"

Therefore a meeting held in secret at the Houses of Parliament run by a specific member cannot be accessed by the general public. I found this fascinating so I requested an internal review. This was the result. Essentially, if a meeting is chaired by an MP, the public cannot have access to the minutes of the meeting. So any number of secret meetings can go on in parliament without the public ever knowing about it. As it happens, David Taylor's team did finally send me what they call a record. I was quite amazed at the tatty nature of these records. I felt they were professional people - clearly not. The meeting was clearly held in a haphazard manner, with a number of the patient population and academics. It is unlikely that any whistleblower was called. Of course, in the eyes of the "NETWORK" as they call themselves, there is only one whistleblower and that is Margaret Haywood.

Anyhow, for the purposes of all other whistleblowers in the UK, I am placing this online. Enjoy!

----- Original Message -----

From: CRIMES, Daniel
To: '
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 11:15 AM
Subject: Meeting 07.07.09

Dear Dr Pal

Please find attached a copy of the notes that were circulated after the above meeting.

I am sorry for the delay in providing you with this.

Kind regards

Daniel Crimes
Parliamentary Assistant to
David Taylor MP
T 0207 219 2237
F 0207 219 1082
M 07951 681968

Dear All

As you will all know, I arranged a meeting at the HoP for 7 July: 'The Margaret Haywood case - the implications for politics, politicians, patients, and the public? '. Things have been developing rapidly hence the delay in reporting back.

Including myself, 9 network members/participants attended. In addition, the SHA were represented by Roger Gartland; Attend by Catherine McLoughlin; National Voices (LTMCA) by Mark Platt; and coming from all the way from France, Janet Brooks. Two academics attended, Prof Celia Davies; and Prof. David Lewis. I wish to welcome Catherine McLoughlin, and Janet Brooks, to the Network.

The meeting was hosted and chaired by David Taylor, MP. On behalf of the Network, I thanked him, and his Parliamentary researcher - Daniel Crimes, for their help and support in relation to the meeting. I had invited nearly 100 MPs (mainly) and peers, with interests in Margaret Haywood's case, PPE, older persons issues, etc.. None turned-up apart from David. This could be partly explained by a Government decision to publish their Green Paper on Care and Support in England in early July. A meeting on this clashed with ours and was high on the agendas of MPs and Peers.

Gillian Bean of SIN, Prof David Lewis, Lynn Strother of GLF, and myself, addressed the meeting. On behalf of the Network, I give our thanks to Gillian, David, and Lynn, for their excellent presentation and huge contributions to the day.

I would like to say more on issues raised by the speakers. However, time is pressing and I want to let you know about follow-up to the meeting. So at least for the time being, I will leave it to those attending to mention or raise these issues by way of response to this email. I will mention that David Taylor said he would be very happy to host another meeting in Autumn/Winter to help us with follow-up to this one.

Since 7 July, I have had meetings which lead me to think that there is an opportunity to set-up a standing committee or forum to address issues of whistleblowing and professional justice in healthcare and associated areas. In particular, Dot Gibson, General Secretary of the National Pensioners Convention is very supportive of this, subject to discussion with their governing Board. I have also received emails indicating support for action.

I propose to send an email to all those whom I invited to the meeting on 7 July. The draft is below. I would much appreciate your comments.

Start draft email :-

Dear ?

I recently invited you to a meeting at the Houses of Parliament 'The Margaret Haywood case - the implications for politics, politicians, patients, and the public?'. Discussions following this meeting prompt me to ask if you would like to be involved in an initiative to bring into being a standing committee or forum to address these issues.

It's proposed function would be to address issues of whistleblowing, and related issues of professional justice, to ensure that the patient, family carer, 'caring professional', and public, perspective on these issues achieves recognition that results in positive change.

(NB: I use the term 'caring professional' in this email to mean those employed in healthcare, or associated areas, who feel a need to 'speak out' to draw attention to their concerns.)

I think is important to act expeditiously so I am keeping this email very brief. Please let me know if you wish to take part in an exploratory meeting. I envisage a September, or possibly October, date.

Kind regards
Adrian

End draft email.

The Network will need to work as a team to progress this. In addition to any comments about the draft itself, please let me know whether :-

1. You support the idea of such a standing committee / forum ?

2. You can speak for, or seek to involve, any organisations/networks ?

3. If you are willing to help in some way, in order that the workload be distributed.

If we can establish an independent 'forum' on the issues of whistleblowing, and associated professional justice, it may be very hard for those in authority to ignore our informed views.

Kind regards
Adrian

Break

2009-10-21T18:33:00.001-07:00

Just to say I am taking a break for a few weeks. I will be back soon.

The Tale of the Salted Slug and Dr Ben Goldacre

2009-10-21T11:40:00.000-07:00

War had broken out between a poster with the idiotic name of The Salted Slug and Dr X . War commenced on Bad Science's forum which is a awful place filled with those who clearly have nothing better to do than debate silly issues that are irrelevant to life in general. It is though a place of intellectuals who do just that - intellectualize.

The owner of this forum is the great Dr Ben Goldacre, a doctor with more enemies than me. Never known anyone sued so many times for libel.

Anyhow, The Salted Slug and colleagues were mean enough to disclose the identity of Dr X with some choice libelous words. I approached Ben Goldacre who I have always had a great deal of respect for. Ben though failed miserably to listen to logic or rationality opting instead to be a stubborn old goat. He was indeed a tough nut to crack.

I assisted Dr X in his defences against Dr Goldacre who continued a two hour pointless conversation with us. The issue should have taken one minute to resolve. Dr Goldacre though pointed out that there was no reason he should protect Dr X's identity given it was disclosed on a different website. I pointed out Ben's obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998. Ben refused to respond. I then pointed out that the matter online was tantamount to cyberharassment. I suspect Ben thought I was kidding and requested all the case law on the subject. So all the case law was sent in about 3 minutes. Again, he had no response to this. I then pulled the case law for discovering the identity of an anonymous posters. In the meantime, Dr X had written a fantastic email to The Salted Slug and offered to see Dr Goldacre in court. I offered to develop the pre-action protocol for Dr X.

A few seconds later, the entire lot of boys [ and we should call them boys as opposed to men] collapsed and pulled the entire thread of discussion.

Dr X and I have always worked extremely well as a team since 2003. We won but it left a bitter taste in my mouth. I didn't expect this bizarre behaviour from Ben Goldacre who showed me that he was reckeless in his understanding of libel law. Indeed, he didn't know much about it. He was uneducated in his knowledge of cyberharassment and prompted to proceed to make decisions without aquainting himself with the detail. The worst issue was the reckless nature when it came to the Data Protection Act 1998. Ben was also unsympathetic regarding the risks posed by the General Medical Council. This is what shocked me completely.

I had hoped Ben was unlike many others. He spends his days telling us all how we should be accurate in our dealings, that accuracy in science is important. Ben though cares nothing for case law, the law or accuracy in these matters. If we placed legalities aside, I thought he would care a little for the fact that we were all colleagues. If he had requested that I removed something that was risky for him, I would have obliged. I felt this was the wrong case to play hard ball with us especially when I had supported him to the hilt in his many battles.

Indeed, it was destructive because it has alienated his colleagues. I ended with a few things - firstly I hoped we would never have the pleasure of dealing with each other again. Secondly, should he find himself subjected to a GMC investigation, then we would just get the popcorn out and watch him - much like he watches the rest of his colleagues go down without batting an eyelid. And it is very sad to view doctors who have no empathy or sympathy for their colleagues at all. Ben's dealings with both Dr X and I were much like a broken record, he was too busy to read about what we were saying to him, his responses consisted of half baked logic and he was being unreasonable and stubborn. Ben appeared to be a very distracted man who clearly was reluctant and point blank refused to budge. The more the conversation progressed, the more he dug his heels in. While I accept this to be the manner to deal with authorities, I don't think this heavy handed approach worked with us. In any case, the collapse and removal of the entire thread proved that none of them had a leg to stand on in the first place.

They always say Great Expectations are bound to fall when some people are put to the test. Ben showed his true colours - a total disrespect for his colleagues, an inability to deal with matters reasonably and a failure to act with speed until he was threatened with court by Dr X. At the end, Ben whined about feeling threatened - having brought the entire issue upon himself in the first place. This post would never have been written had he just removed one post as requested a number of weeks ago. Anyhow, we all live and learn. The last time I had this kind of skirmish, it was with Raj Persaud. I told him in 2003 that he would one day be subjected to a GMC investigation and that he should not have a careless attitude to his colleagues who were unfortunate and unlucky enough to face the GMC. Persaud was indeed subjected to a GMC investigation and one that he has never recovered from. No one remains a golden boy forever especially if their arrogance makes them reckless.

No doubt, I shall be flamed on Bad Science's forums. That's fine - because that is what boys do. I was just wondering whether the boys on the Bad Science forums had better things to do like - tend to their wives, do the house work for their wives, be romantic to their girlfriends or boyfriends? Just a thought.....

Three Blind Mice. R v General Medical Council Ex Parte Pal

2009-10-19T16:32:00.000-07:00

I have had a total of 10 emails regarding the interpretation of this case law. Doctors appear to have the view that this judgment states that there should be a non disclosure of GMC proceedings that the doctor has been subjected to.

I will be very grateful if the case referred to here is not used by any doctor to justify their non disclosure on application forms of Fitness to Practice Proceedings. It should be noted that Collins J misdirected himself on many aspects in this case, most notably, the meaning of the word "proceeding". The law is clear on the word "proceeding", R v SDT v Toth is the case law that cites the word "proceeding" to commence from the date the complaint is made. The case has not been accepted by the Department of Health and neither has the judgment been consulted with the current requirement for disclosure of investigations. Essentially, the safest option is to disclose all complaints and outcomes of a GMC investigation whether you are cleared or not. This should be the position until another doctor manages to try this issue in a court of law. Clearly, my effort at a test case was ruined by three blind mice.

The word "proceeding" commences from the date a complaint is made. It is a simple fact that Collins J essentially got it wrong.

Collins J is not an employment lawyer and moreover neither were the two barristers representing the sides. It is for this reason, all three were a bit like the three blind mice.

The blind were indeed leading the blind. It should also be noted that the wrong definition of "misconduct" was used in the case in question lowering the threshold and widening what can be capable of "misconduct". Within the civil standard of proof, it will ensure that any complaint can be investigated by the GMC. It reduced the strength of the Registrar as gatekeeper to complaints.

The case is essentially a disaster in medical regulatory jurisprudence. It is best that the judgment is not used in further cases to further bend justice the wrong way around. The chronology used was completely wrong. The judgment has large numbers of typographical errors. The judgment actually is referred to as the upside down pineapple cake. It was essentially badly drafted and formulated and also based on perjured evidence by Worcestershire Mental Health Trust. One of the leading QCs told me that it was one of the worst judgments he had ever seen in terms of formulation and analysis. Essentially, it was a misdirected and misconceived judgment formulated by three lawyers with no understanding of the current issues in medical employment. The judgment also established that the GMC was not liable for any damage caused to the employment of a doctor following their investigation. Essentially, Collins J the hero of many doctors has decreed that the GMC is a super-regulator that will never be held accountable no matter how many disasters they are responsible for.

Because the case is essentially a sham of a judgment, it is best that no doctor relies upon it now or in the future. It should not serve to influence any further case law. It was one of the first test cases on a cleared complaint that should have served to balance the public interests to the doctors interest. Instead, it flipped it far towards the public's interest. It was also intended to ensure that junior doctors' employment prospects were protected but failed in that aim. Collins J's half baked effort at supposedly protecting doctors is actually meaningless in the real world. Currently, there is no protection for the destruction of employment prospects following a GMC investigation. This will not matter to the majority of doctors. Nevertheless, it becomes a problem when doctors are subjected to complaints. As there has been a hike in uptake of GMC complaints following the flip to the civil standard, there is limited protection for the innocent doctor at the present time.

House of Lords. Whistleblowers are Not Smooth Operators

2009-10-18T19:46:00.000-07:00

Over the years, like every whistleblower, I have probably knocked on a number of doors. Firstly, I wanted the House of Lords to correct what was debated about me in the year 2000. Lord Hutton representing the government had essentially concealed the 1999 and 2001 reports from the House of Lords. Nevertheless, I suspect no one really cared about inaccuracy apart from me. Hansard cannot be corrected as everyone is aware. The government can lie about a subject and that subject has no rights.

Anyhow, in my effort to correct matters, I attempted to approach a number of members of the House of Lords. A number including Lord Ashley of Stoke on Trent had his PA tell me he was too "ill". A week later, I obtained an alert from the House of Lords stating that Lord Ashley was asking questions :). That was indeed a swift recovery. The same appeared to happen with Lord Morris of Manchester. These swift recoveries were simply amazing.

The above is a letter from Baroness Knight. I never knew where Collingtree was until I drove past Northampton. Her letter wasn't too bad. She made sympathetic concerned noises but threw a fit when I sent her the evidence on Ward 87 and requested that she refer the GMC to the Health Select Committee for review. Jill Knight appeared to react extremely badly to evidence. This is what she subsequently said on the 1st March 2006

"I am somewhat disturbed to receive this huge collection of papers from you and the letter. I must explain that it is never wise to assume that busy people, who have absolutely no duty or responsibility to the sender can possibly find the time to read through such vast numbers of papers as you sent me. I am not at all surprised to hear that Lord Morris declines to take up your case - he has absolutely no duty to do so. Nor, for that matter have I. I certainly will not forward documents to him; he has made it very clear that he does not wish to have them"

All of a sudden a number of peers approached in the House of Lords started going off sick every time I approached them. I have a collection of letters from various peers telling me how sick they all were and how they sympathised but could not do anything for me. I subsequently placed a short paragraph on Ward 87 on the House of Lords blog. It was removed swiftly.

The above is a factual account of my experiences with the House of Lords. Essentially, it would not be my habit to approach them. My reason for approaching them is to test out the lay of the land for the average whistleblower. I believe most people consider the above as a personal rejection. It is interesting that few people see that those who refuse to assist whistleblowers today, and those who turn a blind eye to important issues end up developing a future in which they and their families will be eventually be victims of the state. It is the broader picture that is discarded.

I have never been impressed by titles and accolades. David Southall once narrated his visit to the House of Lords. David was on the train when he called me up. It was always great to hear from him. His tales were always so fascinating. Unlike his persona as the public sees him, David is actually a quietly spoken charming man with an art for entertaining stories. I told him that it was his lush puppy appeal that got him invited down to the House of Lords. It was a point of laughter.

David described his lunch there and it was rather amusing. The House of Lords respected David Southall, the kind of respect none of us can ever obtain. They all knew the GMC had not given him a fair trial at all. This visit culminated in the House of Lords debate on David Southall's case. That was the miraculous thing about David, not only was he a smooth sailor but he was also a smooth operator. David has got this way of charming every woman on earth. This is why legions of Baronesses were ready to debate his case in the House of Lords. I just couldn't figure out how he did it - because I certainly don't have the time or patience to smooth talk a peer. I have a simpler way of looking at matters - either they do something about the state of the NHS, or they don't. It was no skin off my nose if they didn't lift a finger. It simply provided more ammunition about the tales of inertia.

In my view, the House of Lords were/ are all public servants. It was entirely up to them whether they wished to take action. It is overtly clear that they didn't wish to take any action. This shows us all that they look upon us tax payers with contempt. The above letters from Baroness Collingtree are fascinating because it shows us that she will make superficial noises but never take the action required in improving the system. Victims require tea and sympathy, whistleblowers demand action.

There is some kind of view within the British establishment that if a peasant is ignored enough, they will go away. Of course, most people do go away. The rest of us document the House of Lord's negative reaction to whistleblowers.

Man in Pink Loses Out At RSM Election

2009-10-18T03:32:00.000-07:00

It appears that our information was a little out of date. Prof Catto apparently did put his name forward for the RSM election but Parveen Kumar was chosen. Parveen Kumar is due to commence next summer.

The current internet election campaign will recommence if and when Professor Catto runs for the next election in the UK. Current Chair of GMC Towers, Big Ears himself has not made a song and dance about anything much. Prof Rubin of the Pink Shirts, Bald Head and Big Ears Club does not appear to have inspired anyone really. Apparently, he is still hiding under his desk and unable to face the numerous skeletons left to him by Finlay Scott. In the meantime, the skeletons continue to rattle away causing discord in the GMC's cupboards. Rubin has moved them to a sound proof double glazed room so matters quieten down. Sadly, some rebel skeletons are using the internet to make their voices heard causing mayhem for the ants at the GMC press office.

Professor Catto continues to rest his bald head in the hope that there will be one strand of hair on top. The skeletons caused endless damage to his hairline during his reign. It is unknown whether Mrs Catto plans to take out a personal injury case against the GMC for irreparable damage to her husband's hairline. The hair follicles appear to be traumatized by the repeated hair falling episodes caused by misbehaving skeletons. Legal Beagle Mrs Catto was last seen with her M and S credit card buying up all their supplies of Pink Shirts ready for the next General Election for Presidency of the EU Medical Profession. She has insisted that Prof Catto wear Biggles protective gear. Professor Catto is rumoured to have said " yes dear".

In the meantime, Professor Rubin demands daily head polishings by Paul Philip, the GMC's local temp. Paul is finding it difficult to make coffee these days and failed to pass his appraisal for coffee making. He failed only because of his inability to tell the difference between Skinny Cow Coffee as consumed by Sarah Fedwell and Cappuccino in a gold cup consumed by Neil Marshall. This mistake was apparently devastating to Ms Fedwell who is currently unable to fit into her 1972 Vintage brown Cardy despite the GMC's free gym pass funded by doctors.

Paul has commenced retraining as Rubin's scalp massager and is doing amazing well. Prof Rubin has already requested a protective helmet to ensure that the ever growing number of skeletons are unable to affect the minimal wisps of hair growth.

Mr and Mrs Doggo.
If you can't see it, ignore it.

Unfortunately, it may be too late for Professor Catto's hairline although perhaps Mrs Catto may be able to save the day with Baby Bio and matching Biggles protective gear.

Tim Ringrose Solves The Problem

2009-10-16T08:46:00.000-07:00

Following my email to Doctors.net.uk management RE Liz Miller's harassers, I was pleasantly shocked at the response from Tim Ringrose. I don't think I have ever received a polite, measured response attempting to solve the problem laid out for them.

Well well well, times have certainly changed for Tim and long gone are the days of superb meanness. Fascinating. It must be the only time in the last decade, I have ever thanked Tim. Well, there is always a first time for everything. Perhaps the lessons of the past have taught them all a great deal about mutual respect. I do like the swish new Abuse buttons. Amazing what can be achieved.

This means that we have resolved the emergency situation and Miller and I will be able to go have our chocolate in peace.

Calmer Seas and Chocolate

2009-10-15T23:21:00.000-07:00

Since my post yesterday, it is good to see the Doctors Only website is taking some action in terminating the harassment suffered by Dr Liz Miller at the hands of their posters.

Now, we all hope to have a nice calm weekend with ice-cream and chocolate. Should there be a reoccurrence of the usual cyberstalking harassing behaviour patterns then we all know what the deterrent to that is going to be. As for those on the Doctors Only website who are of the view that there is a conceptual misunderstanding. Yes, there is a conceptual misunderstanding because few read Good Medical Practice in detail and few read case law. If they did acquaint themselves with the booklet they would find that discussing confidential patient details on a doctors forum is a breach of confidentiality and being discriminatory towards those with mental health problems is a struckofable offence. Afterall, it was only a few months ago when a GP who wrote about his views in Pulse got suspended for 18 months. The problem with creating case law is that it can be implemented. And lets all face it, disclosure of ones cyberantics to ones employers by GMC Towers is never a pleasant experience. As the law stands, anything outside the medical profession capable of being misconduct is actionable by the GMC. Few people fought against this case law so it will be applied as it stands. Moreover, should anyone wish to research material on the internet, they may like to be aware that for the last 48 hours the GMC have been visiting this blog - no doubt interested in these antics by GMC Registered doctors. I do worry when the Dementors turn up. They are so unpredicatable towards naive doctors who post on forums. The GMC also admitted that they are able to take up issues without formal complaints [ see enclosure below]

I am sure those intelligent enough to understand these intricate concepts will accept the status quo. I prefer the calmer seas and chocolate to war but should Miller be harassed further, war will begin. And as many people are indeed aware, I don't bluster, I simply act. In the meantime, data has been collected, posters have been identified.

----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Ellen (0161 923 6347)
To: dr.ritapal@googlemail.com
Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 11:24 AM
Subject: FOI requests

Dear Dr Pal

I refer to your e-mail of 6 April 2009 in which you raise a number of queries in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

xxxxxxxxx

You also ask for the numbers of fitness to practise cases taken up without formal complaints. From 1993 to date, a total of 575 enquiries have been opened on the basis of press cuttings. Some of these were closed without further investigation but, of those that weren’t, a total of 389 were investigated under our conduct procedures and 39 were investigated under our health procedures.

You have also asked about the Andrew Wakefield complaint. I can confirm that, in response to widespread public interest in the MMR issue, we instructed our solicitors to investigate further. This in turn led to action under our fitness to practise procedures. It has always been the case that the GMC has been able to act on information that raises a fitness to practise issue. This has not been restricted to the receipt of a complaint from an individual.

Finally, I can confirm that the employer details form is sent to doctors at the stage we initially disclose [fitness to practise] information that we are considering. On receipt of the completed form we disclose the matter to each employer and ask for further information which may be relevant.

I hope that this is helpful.

Regards

Mark Ellen

General Medical Council

St James Building, 79 Oxford Street, Manchester, M1 6FQ

Regents Place, 350 Euston Road, London, NW1 3JN

The Tun, 4 Jacksons Entry, Holyrood Road, Edinburgh, EH8 8AE

Regus House, Falcon Drive, Cardiff Bay, CF10 4RU

20 Adelaide Street, Belfast, BT2 8GD

The GMC is a charity registered in England and Wales (1089278) and Scotland (SC037750)

MIND Champion Harassed by GMC Registered doctors

2009-10-15T14:24:00.000-07:00

The Mouth of the GMC isn't Pleasant.

Yesterday, I reported the harassment suffered by Dr Liz Miller at the hands of posters on a doctors only website. She is being sent repeated hatemail by some very bizarre medically qualified people. Her blog is now shut.

This is simply to confirm that we have the IP addresses of these individuals and if this behaviour does not terminate within 48 hours, they are going to be referred to the General Medical Council with the identities of the posters who have been discriminatory to those who are mentally ill. Given I invented the case law where anything capable of being misconduct can be investigated by the GMC [ R v GMC Ex Parte Pal], I intend to use that case law to refer the entire group of abusive doctors. Under the Medical Act 1983, the GMC can obtain all data and documentation related to the identities of all posters within the forums on the Doctors Only website.

Moreover, it should be noted that the public forum featured confidential material regarding real patients and no one has to mention the patients name for it to be a breach of confidentiality actionable by the GMC.

I have written to Doctors.net.uk management regarding this.

Lastly, yes, I do mean business on this subject. I am not planning on tolerating the harassment of Dr Miller at any point. It should also be remembered that Miller is not alone but has the full horsepower of all the bloggers who will and do support her. If a number of doctors want cyberwarfare, we can do it very easily and win.

I shall be back to this subject within 48-72 hours. In the meantime, anyone wishing to buy Miller's book can obtain a copy below. And yes, for all those lowlife doctors out there who wish to harass Miller, they should remember that some doctors have talent [ like Miller] and others don't [ ie those who feel the urge to harass Miller].

Pariah

2009-10-15T01:53:00.000-07:00

I woke up early this morning feeling extremely fed up of being a Pariah. The novelty wears off after a while when the whistleblower stigma sticks on you from here to eternity. As my family repeatedly tells me - I am often treated far worse than a criminal by many people. For a number of years, I have gone back over my own behaviour and re-examined issues to review how things could be adapted. I am certainly not perfect by any means. No matter how nice you are to some people, they always return back to be curt or mean in some way. I suppose it will appear as though I pick fights with people - when in reality they are merely defenses by me essential to preserve my reputation and/ or livelihood. Before I became a whistleblower, everything was certainly not like this. I came to the conclusion after a lot of soul searching that people throughout history who have been "different" have always been disliked. Perhaps this is human behaviour.

Whistleblowers are often tarred with the reputation of having a difficult personality or being unreliable. I suppose, I am difficult to authorities because they can't walk over me. Otherwise, I have always considered myself to be considerate, attempted to be kind and have done everything with the utmost integrity. I did come to a point where you simply have to accept that those who you build friendships with will one day simply leave because of various reasons related to whistleblowing, or the stigma attached to it.

I know that has happened repeatedly, people are friendly and that line is often drawn at the point of discovery that you have a past as a whistleblower. It makes no difference to them that you are a evidence based established whistleblower. I discovered that I cannot control the ideas, behaviours of other people. I also came to the conclusion that to survive, one must adapt to the terrain in front of you. One of my adaptations is to keep a broad distance between myself and people in general. I believe some of my friends find that frustrating but I hope they will understand it better when they have read this. Self preservation to me is vital. I have to watch out for that because no one else will. For this reason, it is extremely easy for me to cut a relationship and just move forward - because I try not to look back to episodes of negativity. Negativity becomes superbly toxic.

Adapting to circumstance is my talent but there comes a time when the Pariah effect becomes really quite tiresome. I am normally fairly happy within my sector of friends. They accept me, we have fun, they know about my past and we have no problems. The problem arises when I approach the outside world in my efforts to earn a living or to progress forward. That is when the Pariah effect hits you. I am not sure which of the Ten Commandments I am supposed to have breached by whistleblowing but there we go. This shows the episode of whistleblowing spilling into the rest of your life.

Last night I wrote a very stern email to someone who decided to withdraw their contact on the grounds they felt my past made me an untrustworthy or unreliable commodity. It is getting tiring writing these emails or communicating in this way. I have done it so many times in the dim and distant past, it has now becoming a bit like ground hog day and terribly boring. Much of the reactions on this blog is all about how I as a whistleblower dealt with the kind of mobbing or bad behaviour traits from others. On occasion, it may not be the best way but at the time it is probably the only way.

I suppose the reputation is that we are supposed to be crumpled human beings with no ability to defend ourselves. Most do not expect us to bite back and when we do, they appear surprised or shocked. Indeed, this has happened to the 2 doctors at Worcestershire Mental Health Trust [ my ex trust] who now find themselves knee deep in a GMC investigation for lying to them about me.

To them, it is some kind of big surprise that this has happened. I believe the words" I was well disposed to Dr Pal" from a Dr Will Monteiro is supposed to make me feel better. So hang on, he lies to the GMC, lies to the court, places me in real jeopardy which I extract myself from, ruins any chance any junior doctor may have in challenging the GMC and now expects me to believe he is well disposed to me. Sometimes I do worry about what planet these men live on. They chose to collude with the GMC, they chose to lie and now they are shocked that the matter has come to haunt them. I am a great believer in equalising karma and I am not the kind of person who is going to sit around and be pushed into a victim situation. In my view, I have a brain and I use it. If people behave badly towards me, they cannot expect me to be kind towards them. This is not a legitimate expectation. I do move on and on occasion, I do bite back while I am moving on so they think twice before they behave badly towards the next doctor. I believe this the the beauty of caring very little about those that feel they can victimise you. It is a bit like hitting them on the snout with a rolled up newspaper. When you do that, the entire world is shocked, refers to you as a trouble maker but renders the bullies fault free.

I recall a particularly hurtful episode 2 years ago when my last post in Worcestershire Mental Health Trust was continued by me solely because I didn't not wish to place Dr John Doran [Consultant] at any inconvenience. There was a lot of work to be covered and JD required assistance - so I stayed on. And no good deed goes unpunished of course. I worked hours and hours without pay on some occasions to complete the backlog of work. This of course makes no difference in the end because all your good deeds sink far deep into the water and the only red light flashing in their mind is that you are a whistleblower.

Dr John Doran was of course the ultimate coward. I was soon to discover this in glorious technicolour. As soon as he became aware of who I was [ thankyou GMC], he avoided me like the plague, stopped responding to my emails and essentially kept silent. It was as if overnight I had changed into a one eyed monster or something. John and I had a number of discussions about the past and the future and we always got on reasonably well. He gave me a large Christmas present in 2006 and told me he appreciated my work. Then all of a sudden, there was nothing. John did nothing. He though happily watched me sinking.and wrote nothing in support of me at the GMC.

The GMC investigation [ which I was subsequently cleared from] was far too much for him. While the Trust quite happily made all kinds of subsequent false allegations that they were never able to sustain, Dr John Doran just stayed on his Evesham pad watching the spectacle. It is a bit like getting hanged while your consultants watch on.

So, the most unfair episode about this is this - you bend over backwards for some people, you do your job, you never do anything unfair to them, they subsequently shit on you from a great height. Having done so, they request that you simply sit and around and accept the status quo. When you refuse to accept it and defend yourself, they then have no understanding of why you are defending yourself. I find this kind of behaviour to be that of lowlifes and fairly disgusting really. Few people have the decency to be kind or decent as human beings. They all insist that because you are a whistleblower, they will somehow contribute to the long running punishment meted out on you. Both the consultants at Worcestershire Mental Health Trust had choices. They had the choice not to engage with the GMC. They did not take this option. Instead they took the option of lying and scheming - thinking that the GMC will somehow give them the reward of the Golden Egg. Little do they understand that the GMC Goose is a highly dangerous one and has no allegiance to anyone but themselves.

This behaviour pattern by my last Trust is a broadly typical for all whistleblowers. It is a kind of Lets Get the Whistleblower Party. My only saving grace was that I was cleared and extracted because I move ten steps faster than your average person or lawyer. I had the evidence of their lying ways because I predicted it would happen. I have absolutely no pity for any of them. They deserve all that is thrown upon them from a great height. They should simply be pleased that I haven't taken them to court to strip them naked and that is only because I can't be bothered with boring tiresome people that become toxic to your life in the end.

That is human behaviour for you - that is what people do when they discover you are a whistleblower.

The only thing for the whistleblower to do is simply draw a line and move on. I suffer from mild irritability to this kind of behaviour these days. When I was younger in the past, it was far more difficult to deal with. In time you just adapt to circumstances, to people and to the world.

I have spent far too many years concealing the fact that was a whistleblower. I had to accept that this is part of me and coming out with the word "whistleblower" stapled upon your head is a bit like admitting that you have a condition as bad as HIV. I certainly know organisations like the Royal College of Psychiatrists treat me as such while doctors with criminal records are treated more sympathetically. For the last three years, I have watched the Royal College of Psychiatrist bend over backwards for a doctor with a criminal record and high level evidence of proven dishonesty. They have encouraged him onto the ladder of Associate Specialist. How quaint of them! In the meantime, they can be caught searching for me like a bunch of snivelling snakes - printing material out and researching me online [ good job we have logs]. What they don't wish to do is research or search for this dishonest doctor who they have promoted to Associate Specialist status. Thanks to the Royal College of Psychiatrists we can all have faith in mankind! Their behaviour of course flies in the face of their compulsion for citing God as an excuse for their behaviour. Perhaps their compulsive habit of dialing 666 while quoting God isn't going down well these days.

So as a whistleblower, you can expect to be scrutinized, stropped naked, investigated repeatedly, questioned, considered unreliable, considered untrustworthy and considered a liability. All of these are not something the whistleblower asks for - it is simply a legacy and price of raising legitimate and valid concerns. While many members of the public have the ablity to be kind, the medical profession are yet to evolve to develop such things as empathy, kindness or an understanding of humanity. Most exist in their ivory tower hoping that everything they do will be effective and that all whistleblowers will eventually disappear.

Anyhow, those are the realities of whistleblowing - the Pariah effect never dies. You just have to learn to live with it. All human beings can adapt to circumstances. I certainly have.

Rule 57

2009-10-14T12:49:00.000-07:00

Feeding the GMC with Rule 57 Misdemeanors

Liz Miller has posted something disturbing about a Doctors Only website. Read here for the complete post. She exposes the narrow mindset and insulting attitude that some doctors have.

Miller makes an excellent point about the behavior of "some" doctors with an average age of 3.

"It may seem funny to describe people in this way, but it reminds me of Victorian ladies, visiting the local asylum on a Sunday afternoon. It also reminds me of playground bullying. These doctors need to be brought before the General Medical Council for bringing the profession into disrepute.

The GMC prowls the pages of that private doctors forum, looking for those doctors who are naive enough to disclose their mental health problems or express opinions about Dame Carol Black.

But the GMC does not give a toss about attitudes to people with mental health problems. Try substituting the words "Paki" or "Gay" for psychotic and see how it reads. At least there is a law against that kind of abuse"

Of course, having been at the rough end of some of these oddball immature doctors, I completely agree with Liz. The Doctors Only website may consider reinstating the one they have just banned. The problem with this Doctors Only website is that it breeds narrow minded behaviour because in the end only sad little doctors insult their patients. Then we can't expect much from Cyril Chantler's taunting shop of horrors can we.

BBC Radio Ulster - I PLAYER

2009-10-13T04:57:00.000-07:00

This is the link for Good Morning Ulster. Programme Commenced at 6.30 [ Scroll down the list]. IPLAYER can be downloaded from the BBC website.

The link to the actual interview is here. You have to scroll up to 0.45.49/2:30:39

Thankyou to Good Morning Ulster. Unlike past interviews, I didn't undermine the GMC once :). I did though have a snipe at the BMA and the Defence Unions.

Witch- hunting Season

2009-10-12T16:47:00.000-07:00

It is witch-hunting season again. Margaret Haywood is in the news having flattened the NMC in the biggest cosmetic whistleblowing event of the year. The rest of the media now seek any witches -whoops- whistleblowers who are dead or alive to comment on Margaret Haywood. Apparently, I am still alive so I can make intelligent noises about the excellent result all round. Under my breath I can sneer at the NMC for investigating the nurses involved on Ward 87 for the fifth year running and failing to communicate anything to me. I can also sneer at them for being present at the original Witch Hunting event in 2001 North Staffordshire NHS Trust Ward 87 Investigation where they did nothing. Mind you the RCN were present there as well and did nothing. These days the RCN avoids me like the plague. I don't blame them really. I could of course ask them some very uncomfortable questions about Ward 87 that they would be quite reluctant to respond to. The RCN did quite well with Margaret Haywood, ie one of their own. The initial NMC judgment was not sustainable given the indicative sanctions, insight and the lack of an actual complaint on confidentiality. Then the NMC have had their own internal problems with allegations of harassment and bullying flowing around the profession.

Having been witch hunted, I can apparently make interesting noises about said witch hunting and no matter how many times I say - don't whistleblow, Margaret Haywood is naively advising the world to raise concerns and be merry. I am never clear which side of the fence this woman bats on sometimes. Perhaps it's the media's side.

So is Panorama going to be there for the rest of the whistleblowers. Of course, they aren't. Panorama is much like every TV programme, cherry picks their whistleblowers. I could say many things about Panorama like the number of times they have stolen my research and made it theirs without so much as a thanks. That would sound like sour grapes but Panorama and I go back a long time, back to the days their researcher Wendy had lunch with us, the days they brough me pizza etc. Of course, that was an interesting exchange - pizza for knowledge. Then I find this with many Panorama journalists. Firstly, they assume they are all quite intelligent when actually they are really quite low on the IQ scale. Secondly, they have this overinflated ego. When I assisted them on the David Southall programme, I had hoped things had changed. Things had not changed really. No other journalists are quite as vacant as those who work with Panorama.

I was the one who refused to do Undercover Doctor - so they had to go hunting for a nurse who would place her registration on the line. I was no Martyr. I had a family to support and a living to make and no way could I justify filming patients. Despite my emails to them advising them it was unwise to place a health professional at risk, they went ahead. When Margaret was struck off, they appeared surprised about it and subsequently returned back to me to fish for more knowledge. I am sure Madge was heavily compensated for her troubles. Sure, I dislike Panorama because I find them to be a selection of conceited individuals. Then I know them quite well and I also know how well they can use people who have the knowledge they are incapable of possessing. If they had the intellect, they would never have placed Madge in danger. The only good thing to be raised are the problems a whistleblower can face. Perhaps there is some public understanding of the trauma faced by whistleblowers.

Madge though has a caution on her record, disclosable to the all her employers. If she is compared to a nurse with no caution, I wonder which nurse the employers will opt for. Realistically, it would have to be a brave employer who risked the liability of providing her with a job - then again the fear of bad publicity of not providing her with a job may just be enough to secure her with a full time job. Madge will soon discover the beauty of disclosure on application forms - where all proceedings - innocent findings or otherwise have to be disclosed.

Anyhow, I have a media interview sometime tomorrow morning in which I have to speak articulately and intelligently about whistleblowing. While I am being interviewed, I often think of the numerous patients on Ward 87, the cases no one quite likes to hear about hence I never talk about them. I do though discuss issues around Ward 87 in the hope that one day, someone will ask the question - so how many people went into Ward 87, how many people walked out and how many people came out in a coffin?

The Frog Files. Professor Christopher Bulstrode

2009-10-11T20:10:00.000-07:00

Barton's superhero

I came to check email only to find that the most intelligent Doctorbloggs had been digging around the underworld of the medical profession. She is therefore credited with much of this research. I felt it best to commence dissection of this particular topic on Ward 87 before finally presenting it all online on NHS Behind the Headlines.

This is an investigation of the links between Jane Ann Barton [ of Gosport fame] and Christopher Bulstrode [of GMC fame]. Those of you who have missed out on the gossip, it is rumoured that Bulstrode is related to Jane Ann Barton. As a GMC Trustee during the time of the lengthy investigation into Barton's conduct, it is not know what declarations were made by Bulstrode. We know that he recently resigned from his position. We also know that questions have been asked as to why Barton's conditions have been more lenient compared to other doctors with far more tame allegations. Bulstrode's influence in the Barton case remains unknown. Perhaps, only the General Medical Council are aware of his true involvement. As all the Interim Order Panel hearings were held in secret, we will not know about the panellists who sat on the hearings nor are we aware of the case examiners links to Christopher Bulstrode.

We should really commence by a narration by Chris himself as to his background.

Brought up in Guernsey in the Channel Islands, he trained first as a Zoologist before studying medicine at Oxford. As a student he led expeditions to the Arctic to study geese, went to South America to work on plankton and to Kenya to work on elephants. In his spare time he climbed and flew hang-gliders until he hit the ground once too often, too hard. His first job as a doctor was to work in a camp for Ethiopian refugees in Sudan for Oxfam. He then wenon to work as a GP in Mombasa and a University Lecturer in Dar es Salaam. His surgical training started in Edinburgh, then continued in London. He returned to Oxford as Clinical Reader in Orthopaedics, working first in joint replacement where he received the Hunterian Professorship, then in Trauma. As part of his increasing interest in training, he returned incognito to be a Cardiology Pre-registration House Officer to experience things first hand. More recently he has worked with his wife, Dr Hunt,developing courses for examiners (Examining in Practice) and trainers (Changing the Culture), as consultants serving on appointment committees and performing appraisals. They have also provided courses for dental trainers as well as taking forward work on the design of new exams for the Opthalmologists, Dentists and Orthopaedic Surgeons. He is one of the three editors of Bailey and Love’s Short Practice of Surgery and is Editor in Chief of the completely new Oxford Textbook of Trauma and Orthopaedics. He works on the Council of the College to continuously try to increase the College’s commitment to training worldwide.

Of course, the word " Guernsey" is extremely vital to his family links. It appears that Dr JC Bulstrode [ Papa Bulstrode was a Consultant Radiologist in Guernsey]. BULSTRODE, J. C., M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., D.M.R., Consultant Radiologist, Princess Elizabeth Hospital, Guernsey was appointed in 1952.

Just before that, there was an announcement in the BMJ for about the time period of the birth of Jane Ann Bulstrode.

It stated "On Oct 19. 1948, at Hartfield House, Hartfield, Sussex, to Jacqueline, wife of Dr. John C. Bulstrode, a daught

There was a second announcement in the BMJ

Bulstrode.-On January 5, 1951, at Hartwell House, Hartfield, Sussex, to Jacqueline (formerly Kent), wife of Dr. J. C. Bulstrode, a son.

Death is outdated. What a Wonderful World

2009-10-10T03:09:00.000-07:00

Louis Armstrong - What a Wonderful World

Witchdoctor as usual does a excellent summary of the Right to live and the Right to Die. This is worth a read. Witchdoctor's a current resident frog locked in her dungeon has been writing some excellent material here and here.

Dr No talks too much. Personally, I think he should concentrate on the Page 3 The Sun. It may remind Dr No that he is alive and well :). Seriously though, the above posts are some of the best ones internet wide. In my world view, Witchdoctor and Dr No would have more fun in Hawaii together but apparently her broomstick has broken down hence they have both resorted to debating life and death. That doesn't mean Dr No doesn't want to know about Witchdoctor's grass skirt. This just means he is avoiding the subject by being intellectual. Men often do that kind of thing. Especially intelligent men.

Personally, in the UK, there is too much debate about death. The way I see it, its quite simple and clear cut.

1. If people want to live, they should be given the best opportunities to do so. Any decision on End of Life decisions in a an incompetent individual should be done with discussion with their next of kin and relatives.

2. If people want to die. They have a right to do so as long as they are not compromised by their mental health and are able to make a legitimate decision.

I think the problems arise when doctors begin to forget they are just receptionists at deaths door. When doctors start to have ideas above their station, life gets a little complicated for them. As for discussions about death, we have too many of them. We don't have enough discussions about living and living well or being happy. The entire public health agenda by the Department of Health centers around either avoiding death or telling us we are going to die if we don't do something. Apparently, if we eat anything now, we are bound to die off. As soon as we are born in the UK, we are told that we are going to die in some unfortunate way.

This is why I prefer the ethos of India who concentrate more on living than dying. If and when I decide to die, hopefully my demise is quick. I have no reason to commit suicide because it's a messy messy way to die and let's face it I don't really want to be found with non designer underwear. As I can't afford that at the present time, there will be no deaths of this kind involving me. I understand this may upset the world view of the GMC or those that hate my guts but there we go. Tough! On a more serious note, we get one chance to live and its important not to throw that chance in the bin.

I do like concentrating on living - because I think trying to be happy is the most wonderful adventure any person can ever have on their own. I sometimes wish more people would understand that concept. Happiness often exists in the simplest elements. We often pass by it because we are socially conditioned to always want more and more material things. The concept of happiness requires thought. Once you have discovered the key or the path towards it, there is no looking back.

Dedicated to Angela who was a patient of mine once. She sent me one of my most valuable possessions. The card said

"Dr Pal, Thankyou so much for all you have done and still doing for me. The fact I am still here! and able to thank you".

Mental Capacity Act. A Race With Time.

2009-10-06T10:49:00.000-07:00

It is always worth reading the Acts people talk about. I find it an extremely useful way to try and understand the status quo. It is also worth reading the Code of Practice. The DCA has further documentation on this issue.

From my side of things, I genuinely feel it is a good idea to develop patient autonomy. From personal experience, the capacity issue came to a serious head to head challenge between myself and Mr Samer Nashef. My father had cognitive deficit following a old head injury. He also had an acute confusional state due to an untreated infection in 2005.

Samer Nashef had made is mind up that he would insert his views in place of my father's. There was no Mental Capacity Act in those days and each member of staff neglected my father's prior tape recordings stating his wish to live and the fact he understood the repercussions of a aortic valve replacement operation. On one side, my father was terribly ill and on the other side, I watched Nashef insert his decision without so much as a capacity assessment. In his view, no assessment was required. I had never seen this done. I know that we had all been taught how to assess capacity and the Department of Health had a protocol for it. He then requested that I remove my father from the hospital bed, place him in my car and drive him 50 miles back home to die - while his oxygen saturations were dropping. So lets see, Nashef and his group of half witted colleagues saw the scans, agreed to have my father transferred to Papworth. As soon as he landed there, they wanted him to get back in the car [ not the ambulance he had been red lighted in] and return home. Two of us were there speechless. I looked at him and thought he was indeed the most evil man I had ever met in my entire life. This conceited surgeon had previously crowed in the Guardian about how proactive he was towards the elderly. I never understood why he was such an idiot on the day of the assessment but there we are. In his view, those with a chest infection didn't need time for recovery, they just needed to die. I was right there fighting for my father - at the nursing station, I quoted every Protocol, every case law and every bit of knowledge I knew. I knew about capacity. I was a psychiatrist so I had done it every day of my life. Now, it was my turn to get my father his rights. We finally [with some excessive hard work] got the reassessment and the operation. Sadly, by then it was too late - the day before his operation, he was found dead in his hospital bed. Time had beaten us. In essence, we were four doctors. We failed to win the race. We sat there after four days wondering what would happen to a lay person. They had no chance in this cruel place. Some places are cruel and toxic.

Nashef was overinflated prat of a surgeon; full of his own arrogance. I can say that in full view of the public because that is who he is. A few days later, Nashef got his wish. He achieved what he always wanted. A dead patient. I am sure they all celebrated. I didn't cry when my father died. I never cry - I knew it was now too late. I wrote one polite letter to the surgeon explaining that they had robbed my father of his life and left the hospital.

Since the death of my father, Papworth NHS Trust has been plagued with a mass of bad publicity. Then as my father always said, what comes around goes around and he also stated that in time Nashef will also know the meaning of playing God. People meet their own fate paved by their own mistakes.

The fact though remained was that this dead patient was an elderly retired consultant. Nashef was a tall, young surgeon who liked to control life and death. In 30 more years he would be just like my father. I do hope that he too is assessed from a distance and sentenced to death by his own colleagues. Some people deserve bad karma and he certainly does. I was in his consulting room, I looked at his perfect life, his perfect children and his perfect wife. I then looked at him. Some people are simply born imperfect as human beings. He was imperfect in many ways. He wasn't human anymore. He was a cosmetic production of Papworth.

Nashef has never been able to justify his decision making, not by research or directive. That is because he never followed the NHS directive to assess capacity. He won't be struck off of course because lets face it, he is a Papworth NHS Trust surgeon and my father was a asian consultant. It gave them pleasure to kill because that is what happened. It also gave him immense pleasure to lie through the complaints made by my family. He insisted he had examined my father. He was filmed on his entire assessment and he didn't even know it. Mobiles are pleasant things when catching liars. That though is for a rainy day.

The above patient was my father so his death will not matter to many people. Most doctors assume that they too will always be fit young people able to control the way people live or die. None of us are getting younger. All of us are getting older.

There is one principle of capacity to understand. If a patient has capacity to understand and make a decision - they have the right to live and the right to die. Bad Medicine features a number of issues regarding the debate on capacity. The subject can be intellectualised far too much.

The bottomline in this - Death by Indifference exists. We have a medical profession who are known to be discriminatory in many ways. Giving doctors like this complete control is dangerous. Few doctors appear open minded about age, disability, cognitive impairment. The NHS is institutionally discriminatory. In that environment, the patient and their relatives have to have some way of asserting their rights. Had I had the Medical Capacity Act in 2005, my father would probably be alive today because the delays caused in the medical staff's failure to assess capacity probably cost him his life. As I say, as a life, my father's will not matter to the majority of people but it mattered to me - much like each patient matters to their relative.

Dr Grumble preferred the law when it was vague. The Act is not perfect and there will be teething problems. Perhaps the medical profession should have been less supine and involved themselves in the creation of the Act rather than allow lawyers to draft it.

As for the lady who killed herself. The probability is that the NHS would never have been able to save her anyway. Every day, people make a choice to hang themselves, poison themselves, drug themselves and die. It is a conscious choice to end their intolerable lives. The reason they are not in the media is because the medical profession are not called to them. They made a choice to die. Who are we to say that they shouldn't have the right to end their lives just like they have the choice to live?

I can understand the fact that doctors are probably a bit incensed by the Act, it probably means they have to use their brain for once as opposed to inserting what they think is the choice the patient should make. We as doctors are information givers. Patients are decision makers. It is often tempting to play God but it is best left to God himself if he exists.

Samer Nashef will not be having a good day from now on. He might have to actually read the NHS Protocols on capacity. There is only about 30 years between him and a hospital bed.

Gandhi's Road to Freedom. Happy Birthday Bapuji

2009-10-03T03:09:00.000-07:00

Yesterday was Mahatma' Gandhi's Birthday. I appear to be a day late.

I am fortunate to have had a father who was part of the road to Independence. I got the tales of India's suffering first hand. I was also taught the vital lessons as a child. I am really proud of my Indian heritage and all that it has taught me. The first and most vital lesson is to live without material possessions and never to crave for them. The second most important lesson is to be completely self sufficient. The fourth lesson and one to be remembered is never to give up in anything you do.

I am not sure whether Babuji would have approved of the world today but I am sure he would have tried to see the best in all of us.

Here are some of his quotes :-

"Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it".

Finally

"All compromise is based on give and take, but there can be no give and take on fundamentals. Any compromise on mere fundamentals is a surrender. For it is all give and no take"

The Greenhouse

2009-10-02T02:01:00.000-07:00

Neil Marshall's Greenhouse

One of the quotes that causes me endless amusement is one made by Finlay Scott, CEO of the General Medical Council. It went something like this

"Transparency was like a greenhouse - you could look in but not enter the room"

I really love this quote because it is such an honest description of the General Medical Council. Finlay Scott does have a distinct talent for quotes of this kind. It makes us all sit up and think - hey, he is right! Finaly Scott left the GMC at the end of September 2009 hence I felt I should quote the best moment he had at the GMC.

This week I found out that the GMC is concerned that my long term plan is their downfall.

Neil Marshall of me emailed me as follows

"I also have it on record that your stated aim is to 'bring down the GMC'

I responded politely and told Neil that the GMC quite happily does this on its own. Secondly, it is my view that if we can't get into the greenhouse then we need to bring the contents of said greenhouse into the public domain.

Marshall has made his concerns about my writings known to me many times over the last year. Nevertheless, it is clear that the GMC finds my ability to dissipate information, case law and rules to other people, a risk to their well honed cosmetic reputation. I don't have to challenge the GMC or campaign against it, every one else does that quite happily.

I quite like my conversations with Neil Marshall. It gives me insight into the mindset of the GMC and their overt dislike for me. Neil though is often much like a post menopausal man, who cannot tolerate being outwitted and challenged intellectually. He has made about 4 threats to block my emails to the GMC each time he is outargued. I requested that they carry it out then tell me which of my 26 email addresses they plan to block.

Neil does get himself in a real tizz. I have no idea why. Perhaps it is my persistence to extract information out of the GMC that irritates him.

Recently, the GMC blocked communications with a complainant. I was then asked to forward their correspondence onto the GMC. The complainant wanted a decision to the complaint they had made. In the last 2 years, no final decision had been issued. I did forward the email and this was the GMC's response from Neil Marshall.

"I have this in mind when I advise you that if you persist in forwarding e-mails from Mrs X, we will be forced to consider blocking such communications from you"

Not quite sure what Neil expects really. I might try training pigeons next to deliver my mail.

Neil Marshall and I go back many years. Back in the year 2000, he made a number of comments about the establishment appearing to silence whistleblowers.

Anyway, I have no idea why my polite emails to Neil are now construed as efforts to bring down the GMC. Perhaps it is all in the mind of Neil who appears to make endless notes about my motives :).

Of course, I don't have malevolent intentions against the GMC. The GMC though have had malevolent intentions towards me but this is understandable. It cannot be easy to be challenged publicly for the first time in 100 years and to have all your dirty laundry hanging out for the public to access. The shock is understandable, we are all shocked really.

I was certainly shocked to see that the GMC had screened out a Dr Barton complaint in the year 2002 and then found her guilty of SPM in 2009 [ on the same facts].