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