Roll Up, Roll Up. Re-Open your GMC Complaints

A judgment created by the General Medical Council has been uploaded to Bailli. We are extremely pleased that Collins J has created such an excellent judgment. This means the GMC will finally have to do some work.

Many complainants who have had their valid complaints thrown out at Registrars stage can now approach the General Medical Council again using the case law R v General Medical Council Ex Parte Pal. We suggest that this case is downloaded, saved and passed around. For all those complainants who didn't get their negligent doctors the first time around can now get them a second time.

Represent your case adding this case law which essentially states that unless a complaint is plainly ludicrous, it should be investigated under Stream 1 [most dangerous doctors]. If the General Medical Council refuse to consider, it the applicant should be able to win in court hands down on this case law. This is newly created GMC case law designed to take all doctors down Stream 1. The General Medical Council hired Mark Shaw QC to create the arguments within this case. Such excellent taste and all complainants should be thankful that he has created such a masterpiece.

The above case law applies to all new complainants as well. Yes, you can now take the doctor through the General Medical Council on any complaint. Moreover, this case law is useful for group actions, class actions and any other litigation.

Excellent. Just what the GMC ordered as part of their targets. Moreover, the other excellent feature is that doctors are not entitled to Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 ie that they have less rights than your average terrorist.

So what are you waiting for - take the case law and get that doctor into the General Medical Council like you always wanted to.

First it is important to email Mark Ellen and request a subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998. Request the Triage documents if the complaint has been discarded at Registrars stage. Follow the directives listed by Collins J above and then outline your complaint to Neil Marshall NMarshall@gmc-uk.org . Neil will be awaiting your complaints and concerns as he is keen to ensure 100 percent of all complaints are investigated through Stream 1.

And then they came for the doctors.

The threshold of misconduct as been lowered. Misconduct has been inserted into the Medical Act 1983 instead of Serious Professional Misconduct. Misconduct to the GMC means anything they disapprove of. That means should you communicate with an Indian accent, that could technically amount to misconduct. That coupled with the lowered civil standard of proof has now resulted in a catastrophe. Pulse reports a dramatic rise in doctors referred by the case examiners to Fitness to Practise hearings.

From Pulse

GMC cases rocket after civil standard switch

10 Jun 09

By Steve Nowottny

Exclusive: The number of doctors referred by GMC case examiners to fitness-to-practise hearings increased dramatically last year – prompting warnings that the switch to the civil standard of proof may be putting GPs at greater risk of sanction.

New fitness-to-practise statistics published by the GMC reveal 359 doctors were referred to hearings by case examiners in 2008, compared with 196 in 2007 – an 83% rise.

The total number of cases dealt with by the GMC rose only slightly, but the proportion referred to hearings jumped by almost two-thirds – from 17% to 28%.

The GMC insisted: ‘It is clear to us that the nature of the concerns being referred to the GMC from the NHS and the police is more serious than in recent years. This accounts for the higher rate of referral to fitness-to-practise hearings. There is no evidence the move to the civil standard of proof has had any bearing.’

But medical defence experts told Pulse they believed the dramatic rise in referrals to a hearing could be the first indication of an impact from last year’s switch to the civil standard of proof.

Dr Peter Schütte, head of advisory services at the Medical Defence Union, said: ‘It’s probably too early to draw any hard conclusions, but it may well be that the change in standard of proof is having an impact.

‘Intuitively and logically this seems a possible explanation – that case examiners are saying now we’ve got a lower standard of proof, this case is more likely to be upheld and therefore we’ll push it through.’

Dr Stephanie Bown, director of policy and communications at the Medical Protection Society, said there was ‘undoubtedly’ a link between the rise in referrals and the switch to the civil standard of proof, but that it would take longer for the full effects of the change to become apparent.

‘It’s early days, so next year will be very interesting,’ she said.

Dr Krishna Korlipara, a former GMC council member and a GP in Bolton, said the ‘significant’ rise demanded further investigation.

‘I can’t see this as a statistical blip,’ he said. ‘Case examiners cannot always determine at the stage of screening, when faced with multiple charges against a doctor, which of the charges might be decided under the civil standard of proof.

‘As a result, they may be playing safe by referring more cases on to the panels.’

The GMC may now face a backlog of cases as a result of the increased number of hearings. The GMC council heard last month it had not been possible to schedule hearings for 17 cases within its own target timescales.

The GMC insisted it had now cleared the backlog.

Revalidation News. Yes, all doctors hate it

"A poll carried out for The Times of more than a thousand hospital consultants and GPs found last week that one in six doctors was considering a change in career due to the new regulations, while one in 12 might stop practising medicine altogether"

Further reading in the Times.

Clearly, the GMC are losing their grip!

The Amateur Defectives

Catering for Tarts at the GMC

The Independent's masterpiece on Susan George case has yet a number of big wigs dissing the General Medical Council. It is as if they all come in droves just for a party . We are surprised that Peter Walsh of AVMA didn't do his party piece. It is becoming like a communal dart show with the GMC's face right in the middle.

On the opposite side of the scale, the GMC made Susan George wait for more than a decade, yet Penny Mellor [ Ms Gob full of upside down logic] is their favourite complainant. Mellor hardly waits for her complaints to be considered. Indeed, teams of GMC workers are part of her dedicated entourage.

Teams of GMC defectives have been set up just for her. A few polish her shoes, some comb her hair, some file her nails etc. There is a room at GMC Towers now called the " Penny Mellor Room". Apparently, Jam Tarts are circulated for free in memory of Penny.

Yesterday's Panorama showed the second phase of GMC dartboarding. The corrupt nature of the anti msbp campaigners were finally shown in Technicolor. Sharon Payne admitted to being a pain in the back side. It was a great shame the rest of her Adams Family were not there to join the party. Mandy Morris' superjumbo complaining habits following extensive tutorials from Mellor were superbly executed. Anyone would think the three had fine turned their complaining habits. This include - multiplicity of complaints against any known doctor, multilateral complaints to Trusts and any other organisations.

Panorama showed us that the David Southall's Border Collie had more intelligence than the rest of the anti msbp crowd. Indeed, the Border Collie showed that she could think in a straight line unlike arch bad guy Paul Philip. We had no idea that Wendy Savage was still alive after her service to the GMC. Doing her best impression of a Skeleton, Wendy narrated the skeletons in the GMC's closet. Wendy though is not averse to making false allegations against committee members herself.

It is a great shame that no one admitted to the meeting between the GMC and the anti msbp group in 2005. Paul Philip who crept out of his gold lined snake box has remained tight lipped about this cosy chatty meeting. This is the meeting that saw the GMC filter all the group's complaints through Stream 1 no matter how bizarre they were. Indeed, evidence on this website quotes Penny Mellor manufacturing a complaint against David Southall through a mother. Were other complaints manufactured and embellished? Penny Mellor appears to be good at cake making and icing. She uses quite a lot of icing to develop a simple issue into a flamboyant one. She is the modern day NVQ qualifier in complaining - a master at her art. Shame she doesn't have that qualification. We are surprised that she doesn't run that course for amateur complainers. You too can be a serial complainer like Penny Mellor. But first you have to smoke a fag, scream like a witch and serially attach yourself to an MP with duck tape.

Penny Mellor's smoking habits were there for all to see on Panorama last night. A scene showing her good side covered in cig smoke was captured artistically in dim lights. Indeed, there is now only one smoking complainant for the GMC and true to form she has made a complaint to Ofcom about Panorama. Every other legitimate complaint made by any other person is screened out.

The David Southall Judgment

This is the latest judgment on David Southall. We laughed at the quote

"The panel found Mrs M to be a credible witness and that is not the subject of challenge in this appeal. Minor inconsistencies on secondary matters do not therefore have any significant impact upon the reliability of her account of the critical matters in dispute.ii) By contrast with Mrs M whom they found to be an impressive witness, the panel did not find Ms Salem to be a convincing and therefore a satisfactory witness on the issues. The questions that the members of the panel themselves posed of Ms Salem show that they were troubled by her inability to remember"

If only the world knew more about Mrs M. We do of course. The GMC does as well.

The Case of the Missing Chief Executive

Has he resigned?
If so can we have a street party outside the GMC?

Rumour is in the corridors of power is that Finlay Scott is leaving the GMC. Is he leaving voluntarily or was he pushed or is he simply hiding under his desk so that no one can spot him? We have noted that in the last 3 weeks, the General Medical Council has not been as obnoxious as usual.

We assumed matters were slightly odd when Paul Philip slithered out of his golden crypt to give an interview to the world on David Southall. In truth, the General Medical Council has been in disarray for some years. There was the expenses scandal exposed by J Colman then there were further scandals that the GMC kept quiet.

We have no idea whether the rumour of the missing chief executive is true. Perhaps, the advert at GMC towers for a new chief exec is the most telling sign that all is not well there. We postulated that they may have all caught swine flu.

Mary O Rourke QC and Ivan Hare have both hinted that there may be the existence of a top 10 hit list at the GMC. We assume this is a list of doctors faces in pictorial format that the GMC throws darts at.

Paul Philip Is Full of Hot Air AGAIN

For man who can't do his job properly, Paul Philip is full of it today. Not bad for a failed barrister and a has been who entered the world of the General Medical Council to study alarms he sets on doctors electronic files. David Southall lost today. None of us were surprised given the fact that no on reads or has the intelligence to understand what doctors do.

This is what Paul Philip told the world.

"GMC director of standards and fitness to practise Paul Philip said: “This appeal was about how we protect the public interest. It is important that Mr Justice Blake has confirmed that the outcome in this case was robust and fair.

“The vast majority of doctors in this country do an excellent job often in difficult circumstances. This includes paediatricians engaged in essential child protection work. Like other doctors, they need the confidence and support of the public.

“But where our standards have not been met, we must - and will - act to protect patients and the public interest.”

So if he protects the "public interest", then why aren't Robbie Powell's doctors struck off yet. Ah yes, there is no stain on their characters. These lying doctors have continued to treat patients for decades yet they ended the life of a small boy.

David Southall has been used to save the General Medical Council's failing reputation. In any case, we know the public hates them and the doctors hate them. One of these days, doctors will understand that the best way to cripple the GMC is to stop paying their registration fees. Until that day comes their powers continue to increase. It is a shame they are staffed by a vast majority of psychopaths.

Vaidya Kicks the Sh*** Out of the General Medical Council.

GMC LOST in court to a LITIGANT IN PERSON

News has travelled over to us from NHS Behind the Headlines.

Dr Shreedar Vaidya has just beaten the General Medical Council in court. The GMC's sly efforts to prevent the airing of their corruption went nowhere today.

Yes we know the GMC solicitors and barristers are superbly crap. Thats why they lost to day.

Jackie Smith "We currently retain fitness to practise records, details of all complaints and enquiries received about doctors, on a permanent basis"

The GMC is currently busy trying to persuade doctors that their procedures are fair and transparent. There is nothing fair and transparent about the GMC. The fact remains any innocent doctor who has a cleared complaint is affected by that complaint for the term of their natural life. Jackie Smith of of the management team at the GMC makes that admission in the letter below. The letter below shows the GMC's mind set about the Fitness to Practise History. This follows a letter in Health Republic regarding a complaint made against a GP.

We ask the question, what is the impact of a cleared complaint when it comes to revalidation and relicensing? Of course, as Ward 87 points out, the Rules as they stand allow the GMC to disclose any data collected for revalidation, to other authorities.

Therefore, a few issues to note


1. Issues can be taken up by the GMC [ without a complainant]. That will be held on the doctors record without their knowledge.

2. Cleared complaints are held on their record.

3. Enquiries made regarding various allegations are held on record even if they are not taken forward.

4. The above is added to the Revalidation information to provide a 360 degree picture of the doctors " Fitness to Practise" history.

5. Of course, if a license isn't granted and an assessment made that a doctor may not be fit to practise, it makes it rather easy to take up the complaint within their procedures.

Letter from the General Medical Council 2008

"You asked us about our retention of your personal data. The GMC is required to keep records in order to perform its regulatory duties. We currently retain fitness to practise records, details of all complaints and enquiries received about doctors, on a permanent basis. This provides us with a longitudinal view of a doctor's involvement with the GMC. Maintaining Fitness to Practise records on a long-term basis ensures that we have a detailed picture of a doctor’s registration history, which is essential to appropriately protect the public.

Principle five of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) requires data controllers to keep personal data for as long as necessary to perform their specified purposes. We hold records for as long as necessary to perform our statutory functions, balancing the privacy requirements of individual doctors and the public protection needs of the wider community. We are therefore unable to cease processing your personal data in this instance.

We must process personal data fairly, lawfully and meet at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 of the Act. In the case of sensitive personal data, at least one of the conditions in Schedule 3 must also be met. We believe we meet the following conditions to justify keeping this information:

“Schedule 2

5. (b) The processing is necessary for the exercise of any functions conferred on any person by or under an enactment.

Schedule 3

7. (b) the processing is necessary for the exercise of any functions conferred on any person by or under enactment”

In addition to this, we also believe that the processing conforms to Statutory Instrument No 417 (2000), The Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) Order 2000 under the following condition:

“the processing is in the substantial public interest; is necessary for the discharge of any function which is designed for protecting members of the public against dishonesty, malpractice or other seriously improper conduct by, or the unfitness or incompetence of, any person; and must necessarily be carried out without the explicit consent of the data subjection being sought so as to not prejudice the discharge of that function”.

You also raise the point about the accuracy of the information we hold. Principle four of the DPA states that personal data must be accurate. We take reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of the information we receive and we keep a record of all views from the individual concerned and any third parties. We have recorded your view that the information we are holding is inaccurate and that view will be retained.

I am sorry that on this occasion we are unable to comply with your request. If you are not satisfied with our response you may raise your concerns to the Information Commissioner’s Office who oversees compliance with the Data Protection Act. Their contact details are:

Information Commissioner’s Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow
Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Tel: 0845 306060

Website: www.ico.gov.uk

Email: mail@ico.gsi.gov.uk

Yours sincerely,

Jackie Smith

Head of Investigations

Tel 020 7189 5132

Email jsmith@gmc-uk.org

One Million Dollar Man

We pay the GMC.
The GMC spends it

The Times featured an interesting issue about the longest running trial in GMC history. Andrew Wakefield is the one million dollar man.

"The cost of disciplinary action against the researchers who sparked a health scare over the MMR vaccine is likely to exceed £1million, The Times has learnt.

The General Medical Council (GMC), the medical regulator, is now looking to overhaul its disciplinary procedures to reduce mounting costs as the case against Dr Andrew Wakefield, the longest running in the council's history, reconvenes today.

Dr Wakefield and two colleagues face charges of serious professional misconduct over their research, which claimed a link between autism in children and the vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella (MMR).

The GMC has refused to estimate the exact cost of the hearing but analysis of the basic fees for the five members of a fitness-to-practise panel — each earning £300 a day — plus £500 a day for a legal assessor, suggests that it will cost more than £240,000.

With the expense of employing Sally Smith, an experienced QC, to prosecute the case for the GMC, as well as QCs and legal teams for each of the three doctors, the total cost is likely to run into at least seven figures, a GMC source confirmed.

Paul Philip, the GMC's director of standards, said that there had been a number of long-running cases in recent years but these remained an exception. He said that the average length of a GMC fitness-to-practise hearing had also risen in the last two years, due to an increasingly complex caseload and complaints about rogue or incompetant doctors.

“Overall the length of hearings have increased, from 4.7 days in 2006 to 6.7 days in 2008,” he said, adding that longer hearings required more doctors and lay members to sit on an adjudicating panel.

£43.000 of Our Money

Dr Rant tells the world about his views on GMC Spending. You think thats bad Dr Rant, just take a look at the millions spent on pointless litigation.

GMC spending is presented on their annual accounts, also available at the Charities Commission.

So, we shall see how much the GMC coughs up against Remedy UK. So lets see, we pay our subs, and the GMC challenges Remedy UK [grassroots doctors' campaign group] with our money. How does that work then?

We must not forget that the GMC spends £48,000 on paper.

Peter Walsh AVMA on Gosport "This is another in a long line of cases which must lead the public to ask whether the GMC is fit for purpose."

The Independent presented a article about the Inquests due in Gosport. There were high levels of opioid prescriptions. 92 patients were involved.

"At least one relative of the dead wrote to the GMC in 2002, expressing her concerns about Dr Barton and asking the GMC to investigate. In reply on 11 June 2002, the GMC said: "We do not consider that the actions of Dr Barton raise any issue which could be regarded so serious as to justify formal proceedings which may result in the restriction or removal of her registration." Yet two months after the inquest was announced last year, Dr Barton's practice was restricted by the GMC. A fitness to practice hearing will begin after the inquest.

In GMC correspondence seen by The Independent on Sunday, it admits it was aware of the case in 2000, but repeated attempts by GMC lawyers between 2000 and 2004 to persuade the Interim Orders Committee to take action against Dr Barton were unsuccessful. The committee was not convinced of the need to restrict Dr Barton's practice until the inquest was announced.

Peter Walsh, chief executive of Action Against Medical Accidents (AvMA), said: "This raises serious concerns about the rationale and consistency of the GMC's decision-making. This is another in a long line of cases which must lead the public to ask whether the GMC is fit for purpose."

Ann Alexander, the solicitor who represented families in the Harold Shipman inquiry and advised a number of relatives in the Gosport deaths, said: "The GMC has made few improvements since the publication of the Shipman inquiry. I do not understand why they failed to impose restrictions on the doctor until 2008. The GMC must remember that its role is to protect patients and not doctors."

According to the GMC, its actions were held back while other investigations took place, but says the necessary steps to investigate the case fully are being taken. A GMC spokeswoman said: "This is a difficult and complex case which has been investigated by various agencies. Criminal investigations always take precedence over any GMC procedures. It was necessary [for us] to wait for the outcome of the various investigations."

GMC Loses to Will Powell

GMC Fails Robbie Powell

The BBC Reported the embarrassing defeat of the General Medical Council yesterday. This is one of a series of defeats suffered by the beleaguered regulatory body.

"Robbie Powell, 10, died of Addison's disease, a chronic but treatable condition affecting the adrenal glands.Robbie's father William Powell, of Ystradgynlais, Powys, had asked the GMC to investigate in 2003.The case brought by Action Against Medical Accidents (AvMA) will now go to a full judicial review. A GMC spokeswoman has previously said it would be inappropriate for the council to comment ahead of the judicial review.Mr Powell believed there was a "cover-up" by doctors who had allegedly falsified documents relating to his son's care to convince others of their competence.

"Nigel Pleming QC, counsel for the charity, told Mr Justice Davis that is was wrong in law and irrational for the GMC to apply the five-year rule and to say there were no exceptional circumstances to justify the case proceeding in the public interest".

The reaction from the decent side of the medical profession was presented by The Jobbing Doctor as well as Dr John Crippen.

JC stated

"What appalls me even more than the medical mistakes – and God knows they are bad enough – is what followed. It seems that one of the doctors tried to alter the evidence retrospectively, immediately taking himself from the civil to the criminal law. From the coroner’s court up to the European Court Court of Human Rights, justice was neither done, nor was it seen to be done. Despite fighting for ten years, this family was deprived of a remedy"

Mark Shaw QC represented the GMC, Kieran Coonan QC, Mary O'Rourke and Bertie Leigh represented the doctors. AVMA was represented by Nigel Pleming QC and Jeremy Hyam and were instructed by Richard Stein of Leigh Day and Co.

The Assistant Registrar who dealt with Robbie's case was Shaun Moggan.

Mark Shaw QC submitted to the court that the GMC is "only reactive and not proactive". ???!!!!!!. At this point, we truly wonder what the actual function of the GMC is.

The doctors argued that they have been pursued relentlessly. No doctor was remorseful about their role in the death of a small boy. Their predicament now is essentially self inflicted and well deserved. No doctor involved in this case has been able to categorically state that they have been honest. All articles on Robbie Powell can be accessed on Google UK.

We have access to a letter from the CPS dated 17.4.03. It states

“I hope this letter makes it clear that our decision does not imply that the doctors were without fault. In fact the evidence highlights mistakes on behalf of many of the professionals involved in Robbie’s care. They should accept responsibility for the part that their mistakes played in bringing about Robbie’s death.”

The General Medical Council should hang their head in shame. They should be representing those of us who believe in honesty, transparency and decency in the medical profession. As a group of doctors, we apologise to Will Powell and his family for the dysfunctional conduct meted out by our regulatory body. We are embarassed to be associated with a regulatory body that clearly does not protect patients or good doctors.

It is time the doctors in this case made an admission of guilt, apologised unreservedly to the family and stopped practicing medicine. That is the decent thing to do.

AVMA's press release can be accessed here.

"She says that as two newspapers have had the same item of news "there is a clear likelihood/possibility that the GMC Press Office is linked to both".

Subramanian v General Medical Council 2002 detailed the role of the GMC's press office in colluding with the media.

Ground One – Apparent Bias

# Their Lordships first considered the question of apparent bias. The factual background was that this was not the first time that the appellant had been on disciplinary charges before the Committee. The Council did not propose to put that information before the Committee. The events in question had happened 20 years before, and the hearing had been in 1987. Consequently the Committee members knew nothing about those matters. However, on the morning of the second day of the hearing, there appeared in the Daily Mail a conventional court report of the first day's hearing. No complaint is or can be made of that, but it concluded:

"Sri Lanka-born Dr Subramanian denied failing to examine Margarita adequately. In 1987 he appeared before the GMC after five women felt the pain of caesarean births at Billinge Hospital near Wigan, where he was an anaesthetist.

He was found guilty of serious professional misconduct, but not struck off.

The hearing continues."

That passage disclosed information which the General Medical Council had wished to keep from the Committee until they had made their determination in this case.

# In the event, one member of the Committee (Mr Semmons, a lay member) certainly read that article, and another member had glanced at it without having read it. Mr Semmons on arrival at the hearing that morning found himself in the lift with 3 or 4 members of the seven-man Committee, including the Chairman. He told them that the doctor had been "up before" the Committee before. The Chairman informed the Legal Assessor of these bare facts, and Mr Kyte investigated what had happened and considered what to do – whether to halt the proceedings or to carry on. No objection was taken to that course.

# That Legal Assessor then held a private session of the hearing. At that session Ms Neale for the appellant indicated that her client was prepared for the hearing to proceed on the basis that the Committee were to be told some basic facts of the earlier hearing, namely that it had been in 1987, it related to matters which had occurred some 7 years earlier than that, it related to anaesthetics, it came before the Committee on the basis of agreed facts, and the outcome was that Dr Subramanian was admonished. But she wished the reservation to be added:

"For the avoidance of doubt, counsel for the defendant does not regard this clarification as completely remedying the position."

# The parties proceeded on the basis that the hearing would proceed while that agreement was reduced to writing, and then put before the Committee in open session. Before this happened there was a new factor discovered by the legal advisors to the General Medical Council on the 4th day of the hearing, Thursday. This new information appears to their Lordships to be the trigger for the appellant's belated application to stay these proceedings as an abuse of process, an application which they made on the last day of the hearing, after all the evidence had been called. On that day Miss Neale agreed that Ms Tracy-Forster should put an agreed statement of the new information before the Committee:

"As a result of enquiries made, it is right that you know that the press coverage which is referred to in the [original] joint statement came in two forms. The first form was an article in a regional newspaper in the north of the country last week, well before this hearing started. I understand it is highly unlikely that any member of the Committee saw a copy of that publication. The second form is that form which came to our attention on Tuesday, whereby a national newspaper published a story about the opening day of this hearing, and in that story referred to Dr Subramanian's previous appearance before the GMC. Those instructing me have been working hard over the last couple of days trying to get to the bottom of how such a thing should happen, which on any event is extremely regrettable.

Our initial suspicion was that it was due to irresponsible reporting, because, as the Committee is aware, the minutes of all previous Committees are in the public domain and therefore the information concerning the 1987 appearance is freely available to the press, through the website and other legitimate sources of information as to GMC documents. The Committee are also aware that the GMC has no power in law to prohibit publication of such material because there is authority to the effect that this Committee is not regarded as a 'court' within the meaning of the Contempt of Court provisions of the law.

Having said that by way of preamble, nevertheless it is right that the Committee should know this. In respect of the Daily Mail we have drawn a complete blank on enquiries. Those enquiries have been channelled both through my instructing solicitors, and with the assistance of your secretary, directly through the GMC Press Office. We are obtaining no response to either telephone calls or emails. It is regrettable, but it is perhaps not entirely surprising. As to how they came by the information and how they decided to publish it, I cannot help the Committee at all.

In respect of the early publication last week I can assist the Committee, although the prosecution's view is that if no member of the Committee saw this publication, this is of limited relevance. But in the interest of you knowing exactly what happened, it is right I should tell you this. It appears, regrettably, that the regional newspaper in question had obtained evidence of the 1987 hearing from their own library. Someone working for the newspaper itself, having obtained the advance notification of this hearing through an agency, telephoned the GMC Press Office to ask what the position was, so far as reporting the previous appearance.

The lady he spoke to, and he gave us a Christian name which has been confirmed as being a name belonging to someone in the GMC Press Office, said to him that she did not know, but would call him back. Then in a subsequent conversation on the same day, when she called him back, she unfortunately told him that it was safe to refer to the previous conviction, or the previous appearance, I should say. Thereafter she faxed him the memorandum of the minutes of that GMC Committee hearing.

That is the full extent of the information that we have been able to elicit as to how the matter came to the attention of the newspaper last week. I am sorry I cannot assist at all in the respect of the Daily Mail of this week. Obviously those matters, as soon as we ascertained them yesterday morning, were communicated directly to Dr Subramanians's legal team."

# By way of comment on the second and fifth paragraphs of that transcript, it is right to say that the Council has presently no legal power to prohibit publication of such material as it is in the public domain, and as bodies such as the GMC have been held not to be courts: see General Medical Council v British Broadcasting Corporation [1983] 3 All ER 426.

# Ms Neale for the appellant sought to stay these proceedings because the Committee, individually and collectively, were tainted by apparent bias. There was no dispute as to the law relating to apparent bias. The rule is set out in Taylor v Lawrence [2002] EWCA Civ 90: [2002] 2 All ER 353, 370:

"The court must first ascertain all the circumstances which have a bearing on the suggestion that the judge was biased. It must then ask whether those circumstances would lead a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility, or a real danger, the two being the same, that the tribunal was biased."

# The test lays proper emphasis on the objective observer being both fair-minded and well informed. To the basic requirement of fair-mindedness is added the need to be properly informed – that is to say that the fair minded observer should know of the protection against miscarriages of justice built into the GMC's established system for the regulation of doctors' professional conduct in England and Wales, where there is in position a long and well-established system with statutory backing, operated by those selected and elected to the task, and supported by a comprehensive appeal system – see Ghosh v General Medical Council [2001] Lloyds LR Med 933 (PC) at paras 33-34.

# Ms Neale in her skeleton argument goes considerably further than she had done when seeking a stay in court. She says that as two newspapers have had the same item of news "there is a clear likelihood/possibility that the GMC Press Office is linked to both". Therefore she says the GMC Press Office was "probably … encouraging an act which prejudiced the fair trial" of this doctor. She suggests that at best the giving of the information was "totally irresponsible", and at worst, "malign". In the real world, the answer may more likely lie in ignorance or muddle.

# Ms Neale relied upon the following events. First the reporter, knowing from his employers, the provincial newspaper with its retrieval system, that there had been an earlier hearing and that there was to be another hearing, enquired of someone in the General Medical Council Press Department whether it was "safe" to refer to the earlier appearance and/or conviction. The employee who answered the telephone apparently did not know the answer to the question, and said that she would find out and ring back. The reporter was right to enquire, and the servant of the General Medical Council was right not to answer if she did not know. So she was right to ask someone who she believed to be better informed. Their Lordships do not know precisely what question he was asked, but the answer given reflected the law as it stands today, as the General Medical Council v British Broadcasting Corporation (above) shows, to have answered the question "No, it is not safe" would not reflect the law. It was "safe" to publish that information without permission because it was not a legal wrong. But it was most unfortunate that the caller was not told that the Council hoped that the previous determinations would not be disclosed to ensure that there was no conceivable threat to the integrity of the hearing.

# None of this impinges at all on the question of any actual bias on the part of any Committee member, as Ms Neale makes clear. Only Mr Semmons had read the piece and had expressed himself to be "appalled" by the disclosure. No one has suggested that he was not appalled. He was not to know that the law did not enable the prosecution to prevent such disclosure.

# In this situation, knowledge of the 1987 proceedings came before the Tribunal when it was the clear intention of the Council that they should not. Ms Tracy-Forster made it clear that the Council were "embarrassed" by this, but:

"I do not, on behalf of the prosecution, believe that that additional information increases the likelihood of bias to the fair minded observer. I believe there is no likelihood of bias, regrettable though the publication was."

The Legal Assessor echoed the same theme at the close of his directions to the Committee:

"Unusually in this case, the Committee have heard about a previous appearance by this practitioner before the General Medical Council, in relation to agreed facts that occurred over 20 years ago when he was performing a completely different role it seems, namely that of an anaesthetist. These matters have nothing to do with the decisions that the Committee now has to make, and they should exercise no influence on them at all."

That was a clear and emphatic direction to the Committee members.

# Next, there is nothing to suggest that the person who initiated the question or the journalist who proposed the answer to it had any bias against Dr Subramanian. There seems to their Lordships no evidence that he or she was doing anything other than simply doing his or her job, and the same can be said of everyone connected with the affair. The way that the Professional Conduct Committee of the General Medical Council and the General Medical Council itself operate together is explained in R v General Medical Council, Exp Nicolaides [2001] Lloyds LR Med 525 s24:

"the function of the PCC as a panel are separate from those of the GMC as a whole; investigation/presentation and adjudication functions are kept entirely separate and are performed by different people."

# Ms Neale submits that because the General Medical Council Press Office was the source of the assurance that it was safe to publish the previous occasions of serious professional misconduct, so the rule in Nicolaides (above) would not apply. But there is no reason to believe that the General Medical Council Press Office were not operating quite independently of and separately from the Committee.

The Graduate

Finlay Scott Teaching Doctors Good Practice

The General Medical Council who can't organize a decent piss up in a brewery decided that they would start training doctors in ethical issues. And here we are.

"Dr John Jenkins, chair of the GMC's Standards and Ethics Committee, commented: "Following the huge success of Good Medical Practice in Action earlier this year, this is a welcome opportunity to expand on and improve the content of the web zone. There are more challenging situations to help doctors and patients engage with our ethical guidance."

Really? Did anyone hear about this so called success? This from the organization that never follows the advice of the Standard and Ethics Committee and violates the rights of doctors at a faster rate than Guantanamo Bay. But we must give the GMC 10/10 for teaching the entire world about the kinky sex life of GPs and other doctors. Perhaps Good Medical Practice should be renamed as Good Sexual Practice.

Don't Jump Your Receptionist Warns GMC.

The GMC's prized sex lies and video tape case actually culminated in a warning. The GMC spent more than a week on foreplay, the panellists advised proper contraception against placing the doctors medical registration at risk.

"The GMC panel concluded that Dr Kinch's "credibility was damaged" because of "inconsistencies" and "implausibility" in his evidence, but this was "outweighed" by his "remorse, regret and insight"

So essentially, Dr Klinch's defence union told him to " apologise and get the hell outta there". Does "inconsistency" mean "lying" :). Isn't lying under oath a GMC offence. Oh no, it couldn't be a criminal offence could it? Surely, we the doctor didn't fib at the GMC? Perhaps thats forgivable because the GMC lawyers do it every day.

Essentially, the GMC advised Klinch to keep control of his third leg. In order to remind him, that he should not allow his third leg to go walkies, they have placed a warning on his record. So a shag behind the GP bike sheds that no one knows about will probably not be prevented by a warning.

In the meantime, what is the GMC doing about patient safety again? Publicising it and listening to sex cases on the side.

Sunday Times? Influencing the Outcome of a Trial?

The Sunday Times has opened its fat mouth and is discussing their findings. The influence of the media on GMC trials was first argued in Mahfouz. Andrew Wakefield is on trial at the GMC. Everyone deserves a fair trial.

There are no doubts that the media are currently trying to influence the decisions of the panel. Is this fair on the doctor?

Was it too much for Deer and his colleagues to simply have shut up until the trial was over? In our view, Wakefield would never get a fair trial whether he is guilty or innocent.

General Medical Council Is a BIG FAT FAILURE.

During an the post Shipman era, we have monitored the GMC's Fitness to Practise. The GMC essentially is supposed to protect patients. This is what Finlay Scott tells all of us. We noted that it took 10 years to bring Priya Ramanath back to the UK. We ask ourselves what the GMC's International Liaison Team were doing? Dunking their biscuits in tea perhaps? The role of the GMC isn't made clear here. She cannot be found on the online GMC Register at present. We should also note that the GMC kept two suspected terrorists on the GMC Register for about a week.

In an era where most of our colleagues have gone down the steps of the GMC on frivolous charges that do not involve patient safety, we question whether the GMC is functioning properly. The last week has seen them sporting their infamous sex case where they all listened intently while the GPs receptionist described how she could not keep her legs crossed. Did we have to listen to how she was gagging for it? Did we have to listen to her tryst in Paris.

We present an interesting case from our files supplied by some previous doctors who faced the GMC on frivolous charges. The case below is similar to that of Dr Ramanath above. It shows that the GMC simply forgave her and she walked away without a blemish on her career or her name. The doctor injected neat potassium into a patient. The patient died.

In the interim, Dr Prabhu Satya, a junior doctor was struck off for a CV error he made while at medical school. A muslim junior doctor was suspended for writing a letter to Pulse. A second muslim doctor was given a warning for writing a rude email to one of the Royal Colleges. The lady who never seems to give up has been investigated three times and the latest being for a "link" to a public document. The doctor who threatened to bomb the GMC in jest was suspended for one year. We are told today that the GMC have taken up a case against a junior who reported a senior for bullying. The complaint of bullying was dropped, the GMC Assessor Dr Christopher Kelly has used the junior doctor's email [that reported the bullying] as evidence of personality problems [in the junior doctor]. The precedent set here is this, no doctor can report bulling or victimization to the GMC. This is despite the NHS's recommendation of zero tolerance to bullying in the NHS. If bullying is reported, you can be sure the GMC will reverse the allegations onto the doctor. Everyone of course is aware that Remedy UK's request for an investigation into the MMC catastrophe was rejected at the primary stage without any investigation. Junior doctors lives were destroyed and the GMC is quite happy to sit and watch. We raised the case of Dr Helen Bright who was trailed by the GMC for asking a nun not to wear her uniform in front of traumatized patients.

None of these doctors have had " patient safety" concerns. They have though been harassed by the GMC, their careers are now in ruins.

Doctors who seem to neglect patients seem to get away from the guillotine of the General Medical Council. Dr Jarman [of Toth v Jarman] jumped ship and declared himself unable to practice due to an " anxiety disorder related to the GMC". Dr Jarman was successful in his application for voluntary erasure. This is Oxfordshire stated “Dr David Jarman, of Wallingford Road, Cholsey, became the first doctor to duck allegations of serious professional misconduct under new regulations for "voluntary erasure". Dr Jarman failed to give Wilfred Toth a potentially lifesaving injection after he suffered a diabetes-type fit in 1993. The boy later died”.

Are they therefore catching the wrong doctors?

We present the case of a doctor who continues to work in the NHS. The GMC has allowed this doctor to work. We have presented this to show the inconsistent manner in which the GMC acts. Currently, no independent investigation of the GMC's own conduct has been carried out. The malfunctioning organization described by Dame Janet Smith still continues without any accountability. As the public can see, the GMC is not protecting the public. As we always say, the public face of the GMC is different from the private face. While the above doctors are not working in the NHS, the doctor below is in a hospital near you telling us all that if you kill a patient, all is forgiven and if you are politically incorrect, you are given warnings, dragged down fitness to practise procedures and your life is made a living hell.

Doctor faces patient death probe
Jan 29 2002
by Liz Hull, Liverpool Echo

A JUNIOR doctor at a Liverpool hospital could face criminal charges after an elderly woman died when she was given an injection by mistake.

Clare Dobson, 71, of Markfield Crescent, Halewood, died after potassium chloride - the drug used to execute prisoners on death row - was injected straight into her blood stream instead of through a drip. The female medic, who has not been named, has been interviewed by detectives over the blunder.

The university graduate had been working at the Royal Liverpool University Hospital for just six weeks when the mistake happened.

Ms Dobson, a retired cleaner, was recovering from an operation to remove parts of her
pancreas but suffered cardiac arrest after the injection.

Doctors tried to resuscitate the pensioner but she suffered brain damage and died in intensive care on October 1 last year.

Bosses at the Royal launched an internal investigation and ordered the junior doctor not to deal directly with patients. She was not suspended but has since gone through a period of retraining.

Liverpool coroner Andre Rebello said no date had been set for the inquest into Ms Dobson's death because it was the subject of a criminal investigation.He said: "The circumstances of her death are being investigated by the police and the matter is with the Crown Prosecution Service."As yet the CPS have yet to make a decision on whether criminal proceedings should be taken with regard to the events surrounding this death."

A spokeswoman for Merseyside police confirmed they had been called in to investigate.
She said: "A police investigation has been taken place in relation to the death of a 71-year-old
woman at the Royal, following a Home Office post-mortem."A file has now been passed to the CPS and we are awaiting their decision."

From: "McGeorge Sam (RQ6) RLBUHT"
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 1:34 PM
Subject: FOI Request

Dear

Thank you for your request under section 1a of the Freedom of Information
Act 2000.
Regarding your request, please note the Doctor was not named in the
published article and you provided this Trust with the Doctor's name, which
was Dr Shamala Rajalingham.
Under section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act, information which relates
to personal data, Dr Shamala Rajalingham's ethnic origin is exempt from
release.
You have already confirmed Dr Shamala Rajalingham did obtain full
registration with the General Medical Council, which was delayed by one year.
I can confirm that Dr Shamala Rajalingham was immediately removed from all
clinical duties within this Trust and underwent a period of retraining and
assessment while investigations were carried out. She recommenced clinical
duties after satisfactory retraining within another NHS Trust.
Please contact us if you have any further questions or queries.
Many thanks,
Sam McGeorge
FOI Co-ordinator
Access to Information Office
Sam.mcgeorge@rlbuht.nhs.uk
0151 706 2677


3rd August 2005. Ref FOI54

Dear

Thank you for your request under section 1a of the Freedom of Information
Act. Answers to your request are as follows: -
1. Dr Ramalingam was referred to the GMC Education Committee by the
Deanery.
2. Dr Ramalingam was not charged by the Crown Prosecution Service.
3. The Dr re-trained under Dr Williams of Halton DGH.

Yours sincerely
Sam McGeorge

FOI Co-ordinator

Two Eyed Scottish Idiots

Running the General Medical Council

So why has the GMC hounded Dr Helen Bright?

Don't Make it a Habit GMC :)

We hope the General Medical Council is reading this because we want them to see how utterly stupid they really are.

We discussed the case of Helen Bright sometime ago. Helen has been immensely critical of the GMC. She also suggested that religion and its attire may cause further trauma in those abused by religious institutions. This was a fair analysis. The GMC though decided to pounce on her from a great height. Her Trust and the GMC have dragged her through the corridors of the General Medical Council.

It is interesting that now the NHS recommends that religion should not be discussed with patients and apparently they could all face the sack if they do.

"A little-noticed document published by the Department of Health last month gives warning that attempts by doctors or nurses to preach to other staff or patients will be treated as harassment or intimidation under disciplinary procedures"

So GMC, can you now apologise to Helen Bright please?

Perhaps Helen Bright should get this document from the Department of Health and shove it under the noses of Finlay Scott and his mates.

Non Doctor Could Be Head of GMC Towers

The mentality of the General Medical Council is all wrong of course. Their public face is rather different from its private face. The way to bring respect to the GMC is for the organisation to face up to the fact that it does not bring cases to hearing that have any impact on patient safety or patient care. The GMC mistakenly believes that if they are seen to bring non medical people into their organisation, it will make it better. Of course, it won't because non medical people understand very little about the machinations of medicine.

'The GMC has become increasingly good at relating to government, health authorities and the public,' said Dr Brian Keighley, former GMC member and chairman of the BMA's working party on the GMC.

Keighley is a man who knows very little about the public. The first thing the GMC should do is boot him out.

The GMC is taking pre-emptive steps to bolster its relations with doctors. It is inviting doctors to compete for one of 25 seats in a new 'reference community' that will replace its patient advisory group.

Sure like rejecting an investigation into the MMC Fiasco supported by nearly 1600 doctors and backed by Remedy UK. The General Medical Council's patient advisory group did nothing but look pretty. That is of course why the GMC is in such bad shape.

We have a few ideas :-

1. Can we fire all the current staff at the GMC and retrain some new ones.
2. Can we fire all the Committee members especially Carol Black and re-elect some decent ones.
3. Can we ensure the employment documents contain a section where workers have to declare their vested interests eg scientology and freemasonry.
4. Can we start having some robust protocols for each section of the investigation
5. Can we fire Toni Smerdon and Juliet Oliver and any other current lawyers because they advise badly.
6. Can the GMC stop being poodle to the government.

After the above and some spring cleaning, we may get somewhere in ensuring that GMC stands for justice. Until then, the public will not respect the General Medical Council at all.

Non-doctor could be GMC chairman
05-Feb-09

Departure of Catto could leave a lay person at helm of GMC for first time.

The GMC is poised to alienate the profession with the real possibility of electing a layman as its new leader.

The new 24-member council, only half of whom are doctors, will vote among themselves for a successor to GMC chairman Professor Sir Graeme Catto, who steps down in June.

The 150-year-old medical regulatory body has never been led by anyone other than a qualified doctor.

'The GMC has become increasingly good at relating to government, health authorities and the public,' said Dr Brian Keighley, former GMC member and chairman of the BMA's working party on the GMC.

'But it recognises itself that it has not been as good at relating with its own constituents - doctors. I don't think it's the time to choose a lay leader when the GMC is eager to enhance its engagement with the profession at a time of great change.'

Choosing a layman would further distance at least eight out of 10 doctors from the GMC, said Bolton GP Dr Krishna Korlipara, a council member for 24 years.

'The profession already feels alienated. This gives out a message that the new GMC doesn't care as long as it does what the government wants.'

GPC Wales chairman Dr David Bailey said: 'I think it's wrong to have a professional regulator led by someone who is not a member of that profession.' But he added that doctors should continue to pay for the GMC.

'I think the disadvantages of having a regulator led by a non-medic do not outweigh the loss of self-regulation if the body is not funded by the profession.'

The Nursing and Midwifery Council, the nursing regulator, is already led by a non-nurse. Its chairman Professor Tony Hazell is a former probation officer and academic.

Professor Peter Rubin, former chairman of the Postgraduate Medical Education and Training Board (PMETB) and Dr John Jenkins, senior lecturer in child health at Queen's University Belfast are the strongest medical contenders for the leadership.

Sir Rodney Brooke, a lay member, was chairman of the social workers' GMC, the General Social Care Council, from 2002 to 2008.

The GMC is taking pre-emptive steps to bolster its relations with doctors. It is inviting doctors to compete for one of 25 seats in a new 'reference community' that will replace its patient advisory group.

At the initiative's launch last week, Sir Graeme said the GMC was determined to achieve 'better engagement with the profession and particularly the public'.

Love in a GP Surgery

Receptionist's Guide

The GMC have forced all of us to listen to the sordid details of one man's affair with his receptionist. Love in a GP surgery could have been written as a Mills and Boon novel. The entire tale was given to us in soundbites courtesy of the Daily Mail.

The Daily Mail told us "Yesterday Mrs B, dressed in a black trouser suit, red blouse and point-toed boots, took the witness stand in the Cambridge-educated GP's defence".

Henry had clearly been too busy swotting in Cambridge and failed to get his leg over. He then made up for it by stripping down Ms B. Do we really have to know about the point-toed boots? Do we really have to be subjected to Henry's dysfunctional love life. Well, we can all see why he had an affair. If any man had to be stuck with the woman in the picture who is apparently his wife, they would all resort to affairs. The wisen faced wife faithfully sat outside GMC Towers making us all believe the woman truly has no self respect. Any decent woman would have left Henry uncontrolled one eyed trouser snake for a more controlled version.

Any GMC registrar in their right mind could have seen that this was not a conflict of interest at all. Why this had to prance through the GMC procedures onto a hearing is anyone's guess. In the meantime, other more valid cases have been denied a hearing. One such case is that of the junior doctors MMC fiasco as defended by Remedy UK.

In summary, there is something about the GMC that makes it always concentrate on sex cases. Patients die left right and centre, junior doctors are mistreated, there is bullying and victimisation in the NHS and the GMC just reads and hears sex cases. Perhaps they don't get enough at GMC Towers.

The Doctors Guide

In a Klinch

None of us like the Daily Mail.

Nevertheless, we noticed this story . Is this the best case in public safety that the GMC can produce? Do we have to be subjected to the sordid details of how this Receptionist could not resist the sex appeal of this GP.

So what happened to patient safety again? Any cases about patient neglect at all?

This GMC loves sex cases. That is all they try from day to day. Patient safety? Patient risk? Patient death? Who cares eh? As long as the GMC sack all doctors who have sex, its obviously fine.

GMC Searches for the term " We Hate the GMC"

We understand that the rest of the blogs are having a GMC week. We also understand that the GMC have been monitoring a number of medical blogs. This was very interesting. We can confirm that the GMC visits us on a daily basis.

A recent visit made us howl with laughter. Someone from GMC Towers searched "21st January 2009 16:57:00 www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=we%2Bhate%2Bthe%2Bgmc&btnG=Google"
Essentially, the string translates as " We hate the GMC". So someone works internally is searching for " We hate the GMC". We can understand why.

VISITOR ANALYSIS
Referring Link No referring link
Host Name
IP Address 80.169.163.211 GMC
Country United Kingdom
Region -
City -
ISP Gb-colt-general-medical-council
Returning Visits 0
Visit Length Multiple visits spread over more than one day
VISITOR SYSTEM SPECS
Browser MSIE 6.0
Operating System Windows XP
Resolution 1024x768
Javascript Enabled
Navigation Path
Date Time WebPage
20th January 2009 11:33:23 No referring link
www.generalmedicalcouncil.com/
21st January 2009 16:57:00
www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=we%2Bhate%2Bthe%2Bgmc&btnG=Google
Search&meta=cr%3DcountryUK%7CcountryGB
www.generalmedicalcouncil.com/2008/10/birthday-cake.html
27th January 2009 17:38:39 No referring link
www.generalmedicalcouncil.com/
27th January 2009 17:38:55 No referring link
www.generalmedicalcouncil.com/
27th January 2009 17:40:55 No referring link
www.generalmedicalcouncil.com/
27th January 2009 17:41:09 No referring link
www.generalmedicalcouncil.com/

No expectation that unlawful policy will be continued

From the Times

Queen’s Bench Division
Published January 19, 2009
Regina (British Medical Association) v General Medical Council

There could be no legitimate expectation that a policy would be continued once it it had become known that it was unlawful.

Mr Justice Burnett so stated in the Queen’s Bench Division on October 3, 2008, when dismissing a claim for judicial review by the British Medical Association of a decision of the General Medical Council, on May 22, 2008, to abolish a concession by which doctors over the age of 65 were not required to pay registration fees.

HIS LORDSHIP said that the concession had been ended because it was considered to be unlawful under the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations (SI 2006 No 1031).

A doctor, who was retiring at 60, had suggested that the concession unfairly discriminated against him unless the GMC could establish that it was “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim” within regulation 3(1)(b).

The decision followed research which had failed to establish a legitimate aim behind the introduction of the concession in 1970, and leading counsel’s advice had been that the practice was unlawful.

The GMC had written appropriately to the BMA and others on May 8. No legitimate aim had been identified by May 22.

BMA submissions that there had been a failure to consult and the outcome had been a conspicuously unfair abuse of power and the decision, while rational, had been in breach of legitimate expectations, could not be accepted: see R (Bhatt Murphy (a Firm) and Others v Independent Assessor; R (Niazi and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (The Times July 21, 2008).

There could be no legitimate expectation that a policy would be continued once it it had become known that it was unlawful, and consultation had not been promised, nor was it appropriate in the circumstances.

Dr Helen Bright

Dr Helen Bright's case is an interesting one. She was a consultant psychiatrist until her Medical Director's conduct ensured she was thrown into the GMC's pit of vipers. As a survivor of this pit of vipers, Helen Bright continues to raise a number of interesting issues through her blog.

Here is the Times reporting the case.

Dr Bright has a point about the impact of uniforms on people who have suffered at the hands of religious institutions.

It should be noted that the General Medical Council has no criteria as to what may or may not constitute a mental illness. Blake Dobson Fitness to Practise Directorate recently stated that he felt that no such directive was required.

Two cases the General Medical Council are aware of related to two junior doctors whose irate correspondence was used as so called " potential evidence of mental illness". In one complaint, the complainant withdrew the complaint. The GMC subjected the doctor to a review with two psychiatrists. Once he was pronounced sane, they placed him down the conduct route and gave him a 5 year warning. The second case related to a number of irate correspondence accusing the GMC of being "incompetent". The GMC set about instigating a covert investigation on their own volition. They subsequently paid out substantial damages by way of a legal settlement.

Bright has a post called GMC Madness. We have cut and paste this section in its entirety.

"Although I am a Consultant Psychiatrist I have now received no less than eight demands to undergo psychiatric examinations from General Medical Council (GMC) in London. I have never had mental illness in my whole life. My friends, my family, professional colleagues (psychiatrists, psychologist, nurses, managers and others) do not think I have any mental health problems at all.

It would appear that the only thing that is necessary for this to occur is to be critical of some professional practice.

In 1999 I objected to the wearing of religious uniform by social worker who worked with mentally ill. Psychiatrists and psychiatric nurses do not wear white coats or nursing uniforms as it creates barrier to trust. Wearing of uniforms in the psychiatric setting is associated with poorer compliance with treatment, more violence, and more self-harm. Although, I raised these issues through the usual channels, I was ignored and after I went to the press I have been subjected to the continuous harassment. The Medical Director of the hospital where I worked and to whom I initially complained about the social worker became a member of GMC council!!! He ignored my concerns. Naturally, ever since GMC has stood by what is wrong and against Human Rights. Patients are less important than a member of GMC. I had no deaths while I worked in that hospital by the way.

GMC referrals to psychiatrists are completely unnecessary and inappropriate way of dealing with political issues.

The only thing that is necessary to excite GMC is for some people to insinuate that a person is mad for the whole process to start with devastating consequences for the patients and a doctor. Diagnostic criteria such as DSM IVR or ICD10 are completely ignored. If witnesses contradict each other and themselves that appears to be acceptable"

Swinging Cocky Doctor Suspended From GMC Register

GMC Panellist Whipping BigChris

We have been outlining the entertaining story of BigChris, the GP who advertised himself on swinging websites and ended up in a clinch with a number of women. BigChris's sexual appetite has grabbed the balls of the General Medical Council. As none of the panellists or Committee members have sex on daily basis, they felt they ought to entertain themselves by reading about someone who does have a vibrant sex life. Yes, it is true, people out in the real world do have sex. Most have kinky sex and isn't that amazing!

Ewan Crawford's third leg is currently on trial at the General Medical Council. The GMC panellists felt they needed more time to familiarise themselves with the concept of swinging and will apparently be bringing their rulers to examine the offending leg. Leg length is vitally important at GMC Towers apparently. In order to do that, the GMC suspended Ewan from the register and left him swinging. The expert in sleep disorders made no comment. We though stated that one of the causes of sleep disorders is too much sex with too many people. We hope he is therefore having rampant sex while being suspended off the register. The General Medical Council will no doubt engage in whipping behaviour and will be poised to tell Ewan that sex without GMC regulated Committee tested viagra is not acceptable.

We should mention that Ewan's registration came under risk after a retired police man reported him to the GMC. His wife had been well and truly experimented apparently. It is noted that the lady in question was quite happy to say " yes yes yes" as opposed to "no, no no". So, it is clear that the good doctor gave her a right seeing to and succeeded where the retired policeman failed. In order to preserve his already failing reputation in bed, the retired policeman reported the good doctor to the GMC. Each man's Fitness to Practise In Bed will not be assessed because the retired policeman's wife has already assessed it and given her verdict.

BigChris's defence was that he was continuing his female anatomy revision and gaining CPDs ready to be revalidated by Dame Carol Black [ carrying a leather whip].

Roy Meadow - Innocent in the Courts, Still Guilty in the Minds of the Public

Still Fighting. Well done Prof Meadow

One of the greatest injustices in GMC history was the issue of Roy Meadow. Now no one knows why they disliked him. Meadow recently complained to the Press Complaints commission and failed. I am not surprised because most doctors simply accept that the Press will back down without an argument. Of course, the press makes it living out of bashing up Meadow through every media outlet, why would they want to know the truth know? After all, they created their heroine - a alcoholic mother and won her appeal for her. Of course, Clark was not "innocent on the facts" she was innocent on the turn of an expert view. Of course, there are many expert views that people pay for - like lawyers those expert views become black or white depending on how much is paid.

The truth about Sally Clark's case [ the evidence based truth] is too hard for anyone to bare really. No one reads the evidence or the judgments in the Clark's case. No one notes what Stephen Clark did in the first hearing. We thought we would tell everyone

The Dispatches programme[27 April 2000] also reported that Mr Clark had given incorrect evidence concerning the time of his arrival home on the night of the second baby’s death (Day 4 GMC, page 59 GMC v Southall). This was also referred to by the Appeal Court on 2nd October 2000 in the first and unsuccessful appeal made by Mrs Clark.

Here is what the Appeal court stated in October 2000:

“The untrue evidence given by Mr Clark about the time of his homecoming, which necessitated his recall at trial, was of the greatest significance in our judgment because had he arrived home at 5.30 p.m., it would have undermined the prosecution case”.

So whose fault was the first conviction? Was it Roy Meadow or was it the many many many people involved in the case. And what did the judgment mean by " was the greatest significance in our judgment". Did he say " Roy Meadow's statistics was of greatest significance". Of course, the judge didn't.

Sally Clark was a solicitor. She also had a alcohol problem. Stephen Clark is a solicitor. Despite this, the world thinks they are whiter than white and angelic. Well, solicitors can win cases, they also know about technicality. Solicitors spend each day springing innocent and guilty people out of court.

Sally was good at tugging at the heart strings. In the meantime, we were fed nice pristine stories by her PR machine. Who hires a PR machine? Well, the late Sally Clark did so she could become the heroine of those that are wrongly accused. It is though the facts of the case and the evidence that few people pay much attention to.

Roy Meadow though was dragged through the GMC not because he killed a patient but because he quoted the Department of Health's own statistics in a court hearing. The Department of Health took no responsibility for their actions or their faulty research.

Instead, the GMC dragged this man through many years of vilification by the media. The media achieved their verdict, they achieved their vilification but in the end the High Court vindicated Roy Meadow. Sally Clark was vindicated by a High Court. So if Sally Clark can be "innocent" why is Roy Meadow "guilty". Of course, nothing can be said of Sally Clark now, who in the end was found dead after her intoxication. So three people died in one family. That is always an interesting fact to look at from all angles of the argument.

No doubt, after this article there will be howls of disagreement from the women who consider Clark to be a heroine. They of course fail to understand that the media made this happen. There are many innocent people in the courts and prisons. No one hires a PR machine to advertise it.

Dr Shagworthy is GMC Star Witness. Prickly Conception Raises Questions

Prickly Subject

A certain senior woman Obstetrician and Gynaecologist was chosen as the star witness for a recent GMC prosecution. During the hearing she admitted to getting " pregnant" on holiday. Alas, the GMC prosecution failed to ask her basic questions about her knowledge of contraception. Did she reach the gold standards expected by the sexual perfomance unit at GMC Towers? Dr Shagworthy stands by her serious sexual conduct. Many penniless junior doctors are said to be offering their sperms for hire but stipulated that they may want them back if she is a mean nasty critter.

No, no no it isn't any of our business but it is interesting to note that even those with the most knowledge on contraception make mistakes. Gosh. What a mistake eh.

She is currently quite prickly about the subject regarding the manner in which she engages patients into reporting her colleagues.

We found the man on holiday, he told us that Dr Shagworthy had left him with a slight impediment as described above. The GMC is said to have denied all liability and denied hiding under the bed and providing her with tits [ Ed Note - Its "tips" Audrey, I say its "tips" - these typographical errors are likely to throw us into the health gulag] on contraceptive guidance. Time for a stiff whisky only because we don't understand why any man would want to jump in with all sperms blazing.

Related Links

NHS Behind the Headlines.

Dear Finlay Scott, The Rebel Doctors Are Coming

GMC rejects calls for inquiry into MTAS - Source E-Insider.

07 Jan 2009

The General Medical Council has rejected calls for it to investigate the IT and selection procedures for Modernising Medical Careers.

Doctors’ pressure group Remedy UK wrote to the GMC in October urging it to investigate centralised, computer-based application process for MMC and the role of the senior doctors responsible for it.

Remedy asked the GMC to investigate whether their professional and managerial actions in relation to the Medical Training Application Service and Speciality Selection and Recruitment fell below the standards outlined in the regulatory body’s own document, Management for Doctors.

However, the GMC rejected its demands in a reply issued just before the Christmas break. It said the alleged misconduct was not relevant to the fitness to practice of the doctors involved and that allegations of misconduct had to relate to poor performance in a clinical setting.

Remedy disputes this, arguing that misconduct cases have been brought against doctors where they have been exercising their “calling” in other contexts, such as managing services and giving evidence in court cases. It says doctors have also been “GMC’d” for drink problems, sexual and financial conduct, plagiarism and other misdemeanours.

“The usual GMC line on cases like this is that they bring the profession into disrepute. So how much did the ‘biggest disaster in a generation’ bring the profession into disrepute?” the organisation asked in a statement. “In terms of column inches, the MTAS 2007 fiasco topped any other medical story in the last five years [and] did not shower our profession in glory.”

Remedy says it is now looking for ways to challenge the ruling and may ask for a judicial review of the GMC’s decision. However, it will need to raise cash for this action.

The selection process for MMC specialist posts and the MTAS website came under fire in March 2007. The website later proved insecure and was abandoned in favour of a paper-based application process by the Department of Health.

The Commons’ health select committee later identified failures at all levels in the introduction of the new system for training junior doctors, and criticised the DH and medical leaders for failing to take responsibility for it.

Lyn Whitfield

GMC Causes Trauma

GMC Turns Doctors Into Gibbering Wrecks

This is an interesting story. It revolves around the GMC gives doctors. This is relevant to revalidation and relicensing because these standards will be used against all doctors in the country. The rumour is that the standards are set inordinately high. It is of course a great shame that no one sets proficiency tests for those who work at the GMC itself. Their employees could do with a good dose of revalidation.

The article states as follows :-

A bungling GP branded “deficient” by the General Medical Council for failing competency tests claimed she was left traumatised by the “biased” exams.

Dr Krishna Rukmani, 63, was said to have performed badly in 11 areas including treating emergencies and communicating with patients.

She “failed to “demonstrate an improvement” and allegedly tried to hide the GMC’s findings when trying to join GPs’ lists.

Dr Rukmani, who qualified in Calcutta in 1975, also failed to turn up to a second set of competency tests in 2007, claiming she was sick.

"The doctor told the GMC how she had been left physically traumatised by the competency tests and lacked “courage” to return.

She said: “I did not go to the second part of the assessment, the practical, because the way they were harrassing me. I just could not tolerate any more. I don’t think any doctor could have taken any more stress of that kind.

“After that first assessment, my voice and hands have become permanently trembling.”

Crying Shame

Wakefield Tent at GMC Towers.

John Stone is an interesting man. His last involvement was seen with Lisa Blakemore Brown. He can also be seen co writing a letter in support of Lisa Blakemore Brown. and his knowledge of the Blakemore Brown Transcripts.

Anyhow, John Stone has been writing an interesting blog. Despite his flaws in human character, he can actually write fairly well. Previously a contributor to the BMJ, John Stone has his own agenda. In Age of Autism he refers to a complaint made against a number of professionals involved in MMR. We will of course quote and republish the entire document here.

As the hearing at the UK General Medical Council against the three Royal Free doctors staggers on into 2009 it is intriguing to report that Bill Welsh, president of the Edinburgh based Autism Treatment Trust and autism grandparent, has launched a personal complaint against eleven British health officials closely linked to the MMR affair. The 25 page document has been sitting before the GMC since October, and he has now decided to publish it.

Bill Welsh’s complaint covers the whole history of recklessness and negligence surrounding MMR, going back to 1988 when a known defective version of the vaccine was introduced by GlaxoSmithKline despite the fact that it had already been banned in Canada, and indeed later had to be withdrawn in the UK. He also draws attention to the fact that up until the introduction of MMR medical advice was against the use of mumps vaccination for infants, thus delaying likely onset of the disease to an age when it is more hazardous – suggesting its application may still be unethical.

At the beginning Welsh outlines five areas of concern:

1. The inexplicable, and unforgivable, failure to react appropriately when it was established in 1998 that autistic children had a novel form of bowel disease/ inflammation.

2. An insistence on an “MMR or nothing” policy in face of the initial, and accumulative, scientific and anecdotal evidence re MMR’s lack of safety for a sub-set of children.

3. A refusal to press for proper investigation, using the most appropriate scientific means of research, of the claims of thousands of parents that the MMR vaccine had damaged children.

4. The promulgation, in conjunction with the Health Protection Agency, of information relating to MMR vaccine safety that is likely unreliable and potentially misleading in that context.

5. The recommendation that unethical treatments be given to children when there is no clinical need and irrespective of whether the child might be prone to adverse reactions.

Particular fire is directed at Prof. David Salisbury, Director of Immunisation at the Department of Health, who is named throughout the complaint, but ten other health officials are also named. They are the two Chief Medical Officers at the Department of Health during the period, Sir Kenneth Calman and Sir Liam Donaldson; chairmen of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation Prof Sir David Hull, Prof Michael Langman and Prof Andrew Hall; chairmen of the Committee on Safety in Medicines, Sir Alisdair Breckenridge and Gordon Duff (Breckenridge is also named as the head of the medicines licensing authority, the MHRA); two directors of the Medical Research Council Sir George Radda and Sir Colin Blakemore and the head of the Health Protection Agency, Sir William Stewart.

The complaint documents the systemic failure to heed any counter evidence about the vaccine’s safety over a period of two decades in pursuit of health policy – an over-reliance on epidemiology, and a tragic failure to monitor or explore the harm caused to individual children, failing ethically and humanely those children and the public.

Plainly, so long as medicines are administered there is a duty on officials, on doctors and scientists, to make sure that they are safe, and used as safely as they can be. As Bill Welsh makes clear, this has never happened. It could not throw into greater relief the present perversion of justice taking place in the prosecution of Andrew Wakefield, John Walker-Smith and Simon Murch, who are on trial because of the bureaucratic fantasy that the children they were investigating and treating were not ill. Perhaps one day soon the bureaucrats, themselves, will be on trial. Thank you, Bill!

Bill Welsh's large document can be found here. While Bill has some excellent points there, the group who is very good at protesting, screaming and shouting, parading their ideas on the internet and essentially tub thumping are not great at paying attention to detail. By detail, we all mean reading the document Good Medical Practise. The document does not detail which section of the Good Medical Practise rules is alleged to have been breached. This is largely a catastrophic document because it shows that the group cannot spend any time and effort studying the documents that the GMC uses. The art of course of winning at the GMC is to format the complaint document in line with their guidance. Mr Welsh hasn't done this at all. That is of course his failing here. Perhaps they ought to read the meaning of Fitness to Practise. Then they ought to read about the role of the Registrar at the GMC. If the group cannot establish potential misconduct or deficient performance, there will be no success in their complaint.

Anyhow, far from us minions to tell the group what to do. They all think they know best anyway. It is an interesting era we all live in, we have seen a group referral by Remedy UK and now by this patient group. The GMC now have their work cut out for them. No doubt, Finlay Scott's hair will be turning grey as the GMC is now pinned against the wall and asked to cough up the goods in the name of justice.

As for Andrew Wakefield, despite his overwhelming support, his conduct in some issues has been questionable. Nevertheless, the large tent they have set up for him over such a long period is disproportionate really when the money could be spent stopping doctors who really harm patients. Wakefield should have been given no more than a warning. The GMC though do have to justify their existence to the government. That is why Finlay Scott got his CBE. It is a good technique really, throw the doctors to the government and bag the CBE.

No Group Hug For Big Cchris

Big Cchris's Harem

Sometime ago, we featured the antics of Big Cchris. The Record features the fact that Big Cchris has got the sack. Apparently, swinger Dr Big Cchris can't swing anymore because his sex life affects his job. We assume his colleagues don't have sex because they are Scottish. Big Cchris who likes to entertain women day and night is an expert in insomnia. Being Sleepless in Edinburgh is now a potential breach of Good Medical Practise.

The GMC didn't want to comment because they were too busy with their noses in the trough finding out the next internet website Big Cchris was due to be registered with. Afterall, you can change your avatar and your screename and still have great sex.

We hope Big Cchris will continue to have great sex although rumours have been circulating that the GMC Police are often found under his bed monitoring the length of time he takes with each encounter.

Shoe Throwing At the General Medical Council

This should be the scene in front of GMC Towers London and Manchester but it isn't. Nevertheless, we know that all doctors in the UK practise telepathic shoe throwing. Shoe throwing has now become a trend in the UK. Of course, any doctor found throwing their Nike trainers at the GMC will be suspended forthwith.

Isn't that what the GMC do to anyone who protest against them? Actually, this is what they do...

GMC Police

"The GMC should be on the side of the doctors and not hide behind the skirts of the legal profession."

GMC Fails Retired Doctors

The poster below has been registered with the GMC for 50 years. 50 years I say. It is worse than a prison sentence or a bad marriage. Nevertheless, he made some excellent comments recently on one of our posts. We felt that it required better coverage so here it is, let the senior doctors tell the GMC what they think of it. We would like to thank the good doctor for posting his comments here.

Ruairí Ó Bléine has left a new comment on your post "GMC's DAYLIGHT ROBBERY MADE LEGAL":

"As a person who has been registerd with the GMC for 50 years, I feel that a gross injustice has been done to retired doctors, by the GMC in starting to charge £390 per annum to stay on the Register. If the concept , that an advantage to the older person is a direct disavantage to the younger, is applied generally, then the social basis of our society is being attacked. Therefore we would have to abolish the state retirement pension, free travel, free television licence and so on.
The EU directive could not, in all fairness and justice, have possibly intended that an end be brought to protection of the older person. Retired doctors already suffer discrimination in the course of their continuing medical education. Unlike doctors in employment, they are unable to claim expenses for membership of Royal Colleges, BMA and other medical organisations, or for subsistence and travel to medical conferences. Surely they have a right and a duty to keep abreast of medical developments. In order to do so they must pay out of their own pocket. Furthermore, the Inland Revenue is prejudiced in favour of those in employment , but for the retired, will make no allowances for medical education, or for the expense involved in writing on medical matters.The GMC should be on the side of the doctors and not hide behind the skirts of the legal profession"

Remedy UK v General Medical Council. The Mutiny Begins

Remedy UK Is Coming

Just when you thought it was safe to come out of the water, the General Medical Council have flashed their fin and showed how incompetent they really are. Having failed junior doctors for years, the GMC is now in the process of antagonising more than half of the medical profession.

We featured Remedy UK sometime ago regarding their complaint to the GMC. We are unaware of all the MTAS architects referred to the GMC but we have a fair idea of the shortlist. The GMC have not considered the matter properly and have decided to throw out the complaint. The GMC have failed to link the mismanagement of the MMC/MTAS with patient safety issues. That is because the GMC misdirects itself continuously.

Undeterred, the Remedy UK team are planning to issue a judicial review. In the last year, there have been 9 judicial reviews against the GMC, the GMC have lost more than they have won.

This beleaguered regulatory body is due to have its assessment procedures frisked by Remedy UK. Of course, antagonising a number of rebel doctors who have managed to achieve what no group has managed so far, is possibly not the correct move to make.

As we have always said, mass boycott of the GMC subscription fees will soon make this regulatory body see sense.

Finlay Scott. Clown of the British Empire [CBE]

Finlay Scott. Chief Executive to the GMC

It has been 24 hours since Mr Finlay Scott was blessed by the government for his " public services" in running the most dysfunctional regulatory body this side of the 21st Century. Mr Scott has been siddling up to the Labour government for sometime now.

Mr Scott has not been mentioned in the UK TV media making him the most unloved CBE award winner this year. Scott is a man who craves the public adoration but in truth the public dislike him and the doctors dislike him. No one can understand why Mr Incompetent was given a CBE. Then we don't have to understand the Labour Party. Selling doctors out to the government is probably enough to bag a CBE.

"Big Cchris" . Cocky Doctor In GMC Probe :)

A Rare Virgin At the GMC

We have not posted on here for a while but hopefully things will change as time moves forward. The General Medical Council is becoming more of a laughing stock to the medical profession as time moves on. There was an interesting snippet in the Glasgow Daily Record. The GMC has been obsessed with sex related issues since the dawn of time. To the GMC, it doesn't matter whether doctors kill patients, abuse junior doctors rights or place patient safety at risk. What matters to the GMC is whether you have seriously deficient performance when having sex :).

Here is the story :-

"A DOCTOR has been suspended after surfing the internet looking for sex - and amid claims he had an affair with a patient.

GP Ewan Crawford has been told to stay away from his practice in Edinburgh while health chiefs probe a formal complaint against him.

It was made by a retired detective who alleges Crawford had an affair with his wife while she was his patient. And it details the medic's involvement with swingers' websites"

Perish the thought, Dr Crawford may have had sex with more than one person :). The newspaper goes onto say

"The Record can reveal the 52-year-old doctor - full name Christopher Ewan Hamish Crawford - has appeared on sleazy websites as "Big Cchris".

OMG, really?!

"But the Record understands the complaint shows his now deleted profile on the "Sex In The UK" website, which smashes Crawford's respectable image. It has a photo of a man's private parts as well as more conventional pictures of him taken on the balcony at his workplace.

Crawford's stated tastes include "erotic mail or chat" and "swinging".

The divorced dad-of-three, who is understood to have a long-term girlfriend, told internet users he was "looking for fun" and "nothing serious".

He said: "I know how to treat a woman like a true lady but also like to be firm and in control, if that is called for. I love nibbling necks (and other parts) and believe giving pleasure is more important than receiving."

Big Cchris also features on another adult website, saying: "I will wine and dine but once in the bedroom, I believe that pleasure is paramount.

"I love giving oral (the use of words as well as oral skills) and would nibble and kiss for hours."

Surely, this isn't what every single person gets up to behind closed doors?! Perish the thought that anyone who is medical would even want to have sex!

"Crawford failed to return messages The Record left at his home near Edinburgh city centre last night."

Probably cause he was too busy "shagging" and didn't give a flying f**** about what the GMC thinks of his sex life :)

21st Century Regulation. The GMC is Coming to Get You :)

Cripes Finlay Scott is boring.
Any possibility of any freebees here?
GMC Pens, paper, free GMC Registration for old geezers?

The GMC recently held what they term a "seminar" on Trust, Assurance and Safety. Firstly, no one Trusts the GMC, secondly the GMC cannot assure anyone that bad doctors aren't caught, not after their theatrical events during the Mr Andrew Hall trial. Actually, he escaped trial despite a number of reports against him. Dr David Jarman escaped trial as well. That was because he developed a condition only known to the GMC called " anxiety related to the GMC". He jumped ship before he could be tried and is enjoying an excellent pension. No one can say that Mary O Rourke defended him badly.

This is the press release related to this seminar.

Commenting on the White Paper, GMC Chief Executive Finlay Scott said: "The GMC is committed to engaging with all key interest groups as the reform process continues. This is a unique opportunity to build a modern framework for medical regulation, with patient safety at its heart."

These are of course just words to Finlay Scott. Words are free, the truth is expensive.

Finlay Scott's slides are particularly interesting. He quotes the White Paper

"The core principles of proportionality, accountability, consistency, transparency and targeting are bringing a more common-sense approach to regulation"

Perhaps we ought to start with the GMC first eh. Let Finlay Scott clean his own house up then start judging the doctors. One thing that is interesting is a workshop by Edwin Borman described in this talk, he describes a NATIONAL Database for doctors - using the GMC Register.

The Fascinating Life and Times of Joseph Chikelue Obi

Old Smoothie, Dr Obi has had his butt kicked by the Chronicle Live. The GMC remain impotent to do anything about Dr Obi. Then we all know the GMC is impotent and unable to do anything in general apart from flex those muscles. We have it on good authority that their fake smile about all being well is due to the large amounts of botox injections.

The amusingly titled Obi-1 - defends himself [quite badly we may add]. What he probably needs is a strong dose of Bad Science attack by Ben Goldacre.

The man who famously questioned the startling similarities in appearance between Peter Mandelson and Carol Black, recently wrote on his website. He probably writes as the artiste formally known as Dr Obi

"Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi, will not be personally commenting on the GMC's dramatic failure to fully strike out his Landmark Employment Tribunal Claim"

We therefore conclude that the GMC spectacularly lost their primary hearing. Well, that is nothing new, recently they lost against Tushar Bhadra at the preliminary stages as well. Looks like the GMC is losing its grip in court.

REMEDY UK makes the MOVE

Today, Remedy UK issued a formal complaint regarding the architects of the MMC/MTAS Fiasco.

Their website states :-

We have requested that some of the senior doctors be investigated for their role as managers integrally involved in the introduction of this. We have asked the GMC to investigate whether their professional and managerial actions and conduct in relation to SSR/MTAS fell seriously below the high standards that are expected by the profession, as laid out in ‘Management for Doctors’ and elsewhere, and whether their deficient performance, and their failure to meet the published GMC Guidance for Doctors in management roles, was so significant that their actions would amount to misconduct and/or deficient professional performance and would impair their fitness to practice in this managerial field of work under section 35C of the Medical Act 1983 (“the 1983 Act”)"

Remedy UK therefore takes the first step in holding negligent senior doctors accountable. This move signifies the fact that bad apples should be removed from the medical profession. Seniors in the profession should not abuse their power at the cost of junior doctors and there has to be a change in the profession now.

The General Medical Council has to pave the way for an improved system that protects junior doctors.

Birthday Cake

GMC Staff Celebrating 150 Years of Injustice to Doctors.

Doctorbloggs Writes as follows

"I admit I am a little bit obsessed with the GMC. I admit it, I hate institutions especially one that does as much damage as the GMC. I have talked to too many doctors on the brink of suicide because of the way the GMC treats doctors with health problems, to have much time for it. I have also had too many friends commit suicide whilst under investigation by the General Medical Council, Belinda Brewer one of the founders of the Doctors Support Network spent several years in their shadow. There is only so much one person can take"

One way to look at the General Medical Council and the consequent rise of medicine is through the eyes of history. The GMC has only been with us for 150 years. It is like the poor laws and the workhouse, a Victorian institution. Most institutions celebrate their anniversaries! why has not the GMC not sent us all a bit of its birthday cake? There is only one reference to this anniversary on the website.

Continued here.

This was the only coverage of the 150th Anniversary netwide. Perhaps the GMC doesn't like cakes!

"GMC is a spineless poodle" Says GP

GMC Litigation Team.
Blackstone Chambers at £10,000 per hour Plus VAT.
Paid out of Doctors Subs.

Jobbing Doctor has raised a number of questions about the General Medical Council.

We would just like to make the comment that even poodles have some sort of spine. The GMC have been misled on the issue of Southall and have acted to appease the media tide. We ask Field Fisher Waterhouse, why they did not notice the fictional complaints against Southall. We ask the GMC why there is still no vexatious complaints police. The GMC is said to have learned from their experiences. They haven't learned enough to change their procedures or policies.

Another GP has said as follows in the BMJ

The General Medical Council has obviously realised the damage it has done to the child protection system, and that is why it has lifted the restrictions on Professor Southall.¹ Andrew Reid from the GMC isn’t fooling anyone with his comments about Southall having "learnt" from the GMC proceedings.

We have all "learnt" that the GMC is a spineless poodle that was prepared to make a scapegoat of honest doctors in order to curry favour with the media and the government. Child protection has been damaged for decades, along with professional self regulation, but that’s the price the GMC has paid to avoid abolition.

But the GMC has completely lost the respect of ordinary doctors. If it wants to regain that respect it would help if it either said sorry—or at least kept silent.

The Hungarian Connection

The Budapest Times reports the inadequacy of the GMC's International liaison team.

The article is listed here.

"A Hungarian doctor banned from practising in the United Kingdom continued treating patients in Szeged, the daily Népszabadság reported. An investigation revealed that Dr Endre Zs. Tóth, 40, had misdiagnosed several patients at the Prince Philip Hospital in Llanelli, Wales, where he worked as a locum consultant histopathologist for five months last year"

Just goes to show how powerless the General Medical Council really are.

GMC's DAYLIGHT ROBBERY MADE LEGAL

11. 7 million to make up for the shortfall caused
by repeated prosecution of child protection doctors.

Yesterday, we featured the High Court battle regarding the GMC's decision to charge subscription fees . We have often said that it is impossible to beat the General Medical Council in court because the GMC often slithers much like a large python. It also hires the best barristers who are prepared to slide around the truth while getting paid.

The GMC won in court recently.

"The BMA said abolition could potentially result in the GMC unfairly receiving an extra £11.7 million in revenue each year at the expense of medical practitioners".

"But the GMC successfully argued that it had no choice but to abolish the exemption because it had received legal advice that it breached an EU Directive on equal treatment in employment which prohibited unjustifiable age discrimination"

Elderly doctors over 65 have worked all their lives with the legitimate expectation that they would benefit from exemption. The GMC again in their usual way has moved the goalposts. This is of course a decision that will anger the over 65s. The irony is that the GMC supporters are mainly the over 65s as no young doctor supports the draconian processes at the GMC. Is it wise for the GMC to antagonise their ardent supporters?

This day light robbery has nothing to do with age discrimination. The GMC discriminates on a daily basis. This decision made by the GMC is because they need money to fund the extensive litigation against them.

The extraction of funds from elderly doctors is for the monies squandered by the GMC in investigating and prosecuting David Southall and his child protection colleagues. Moreover the vexatious complaints and lack of vexatious policy means the GMC investigate and prosecute arbitrary cases that have no merit. Millions have been spent on Blackstone Chambers and their solicitors. This is the era where the GMC has a number of cases against it due to their poor decision making.

Our view, all elderly doctors should go on strike and stop paying their subscription fees with immediate effect.

Attack by the Silver Haired Brigade. BMA v GMC

GMC Charging Doctors in the Afterlife

A long time ago, we reported that the General Medical Council were concentrating on the afterlife and forcing doctors to pay their subscription fees. Scott was allegedly hiring mediums to demand subscription fees from doctors in the afterlife. In these days of recession and continuous waste of money, Finlay Scott has had to think up more original methods of extracting money to support the lavish lifestyle of the GMC Committee members. Afterall, Dame Carol Black's cake supply is costing the GMC a penny or two. Then there is Mark Shaw QC. At £10,000 per day, the GMC is having to dig deep into its pockets and resort to daylight robbery of elderly doctors. hard earned money. The GMC tells us that there is no such thing as a free ride even when you have worked all your life and paid your dues to the GMC. Essentially, these days, doctors pay the GMC subscriptions for the privilege of being harassed. David Southall will testify to that.

Funding the Lavish Lifestyles of GMC Committee Members.
Dame Carol Blake is seen sporting the GMC silk uniform.

This mode of action came about because the GMC have spent so much on the vexatious complaints by Penny Mellor. Totals have now gone into their millions. Doctors have paid to entertain the fictional stories of this desperate housewife. Now that the GMC have discovered what a story teller she is, to make up for the short fall, the GMC went to a QC for advice -to legitimise their theft of subscription fees from the over 65 retired category. You see, all illegality is made legal by a paid for opinion of a QC. As we all know, money can buy any view. The GMC can buy any view to justify their actions. All has not worked out so simply because rage has been brewing in the silver haired group of influential doctors. Their current challenge against the GMC shows us that they still " give as much as they get". Money is a great inspiration for the silver haired brigade to come out in force. Money clearly inspires them much more than the violation of human rights of a junior doctor affectionately known as Dr Scot Jnr. We should note that the BMA did sweet FA when it came to Dr Scot Jnr. Neverthless, we must respect the BMA leather chair silver haired brigade.

Rebellion set in probably on Doctors.net.uk where doctors who are mature refused to accept the GMC's decision. The BMA does nothing for junior doctors but this case goes to show that the silver haired brigade have the real clout. The BMA points out that there has never been any consultation. That's right, that's what the GMC does - it is a unilateral decision maker and it takes decisions that are convenient to their financial coffers. The money has to come from somewhere to pay for the losses made following the Mellor onslaught. Afterall, the GMC still has no vexatious policy to prevent vexatious complaints. The real challenge should be at the Monopolies Commission where the GMC should be held accountable for the monies they have squandered over the years.

Anyway, here is the article showing that the BMA paid for their QC opinion as well :-

"The General Medical Council (GMC) has been accused of unlawfully seeking to deprive thousands of doctors of an exemption from registration fees they have traditionally been allowed once they reach the age of 65.

The British Medical Association (BMA) said abolition of the exemption with no prior consultation could result in the GMC unfairly receiving an extra £11.7m in revenue each year at the expense of the doctors.

A QC for the BMA said the long-standing exemption, applied to those aged 65 and over, currently affects about 30,000 doctors, including more than 12,000 BMA members.

He told a High Court judge the GMC was attempting "to remove at a stroke – without proper consultation – an expectation of free registration which tens of thousands of doctors waited years for and paid good money to secure".

The GMC says it has had to act to comply with European Union age discrimination laws concerning equal treatment in employment which prohibit unjustifiable age discrimination.

But the BMA is accusing it of acting unlawfully because it failed to consult with doctors before making its decision in May.

While trying to block the move at the High Court in London, Tim Kerr QC said there had been a long-standing arrangement allowing doctors aged 65 and over an exemption from the £390 annual retention fee (ARF) they would otherwise have to pay to remain on the GMC's register."

MW

For avoidance of doubt, MW is Mo Wilson.

Penny Mellor, you should be in prison. Everyone knows that.

Penny Mellor of course recalls all the threats against David Southall, all the complaints she has been linked with. She also recalls her forensic psychiatric report. It should be in the best interests of the General Medical Council to extract the Forensic Psychiatric report so they are aware of what kind of woman she is - a fictional story teller, a lady with a grand imagination and a bored housewife. The criminal record makes all her tales unbelievable. Her unhealthy obsession with David Southall should tell a forensic psychiatrist all they wish to know.

Anonymous Poster Leaves Death Threat Against David Southall

An anonymous poster has left a death threat for David Southall. The reason we are featuring this is because we would like to show the kind of guttersnipe pathetic people who leave posts like this on websites. This is the sort of threat tolerated by many paediatricians through the now defunct website msbp.com for a time frame of 10 years.

The post has been reported to the police and we have done so immediately. We hope the person responsible is locked up in prison with the keys thrown away.

This is just a note from me [ the writer on this site] - if any of you fucking crazy lunatics want to post threats like this and vent your pathetic "I am damaged" crap on this website, then each person will be reported to the police immediately.

Any further attacks or complaints against David Southall, will be met with reverse writings on a lady named M.W. Have we got that clear? If we don't get that crystal clear in all your little cyberstalking brains then I hope it is crystal clear soon enough.

Now, I assume the anonymous poster will apologise for the language used. If you can't vent your emotions rationally and your mind opts to threaten people ,then you are trully mentally ill or a psychopath. Which one do you wish to opt for Anon? We wonder what a Forensic Psychiatrist would make of this sort of behaviour from Anon.

David Southall Returns to Child Protection Work

As reported by the Telegraph.

The Transcripts for the recent hearing can be found here.

General Medical Council NOT subject to RIPA. BUT the Department of Health IS