WHY POSTGRADUATE TRAINING PROGRAMMES IN THE UK ARE SO INCOMPETENT, By Dr M Al Ruby

Not Paiced

It is about time that the training programmes for Medical Post Graduates are changed to become comparable to the USA/Canadian Training programmes.

Why should the trainee in the UK apply, after every few months or few years, for more posts? This uproots the doctors family and himself necessarily.

Now, it is more sensible that the system should be changed to simulate the USA and Canadian Programmes. These adopt the graduates from year 1 until he/she has finished his/her training programme year 3-4 5-or 6 and to whatever specialty the programmes leads to.

At the end of the training the trainee would have been expected to have passed his specialty exam and subsequently identifies himself as a competent specialist in that field.

The Specialist would then choose either to practice from his private rooms or in conjunction with a hospital appointment.

All European countries graduates should be given similar programmes in the whole of Europe.All Royal Colleges examinations should to be canceled and substituted by clinical feedback from hospital programmes and the direct clinical supervisors during the training. Specialty papers should be in multiple choice or a variety of different tests.

Dr M A Ruby.

Related Links

Medical Training in the USA

PMETB.

DYSFUNCTIONAL SERIES: ARTICLE 2A HARMONIA'S NECKLACE, FEAR OF CONFLICT

Harmonia in Greek mythology was the Goddess of Harmony. There is controversy who her parents were but one of the myths is that she was the product of a love affair between Ares, God of War and Aphrodite, Goddess of Beauty. Aphrodite was married at the time.

When Harmony grew up she got married and all the Gods came to her wedding including Aphrodite's husband who was spiteful and gave Harmonia a gift: a cursed necklace. This meant that everyone who possessed the necklace would suffer misfortune without knowing what was the cause of it. Harmonia certainly suffered a lot of misfortune and had to go into exile with her husband. While in exile they helped Enchelean people in their conflict with Illyrians (around lake Ohrid ). The mythical people they helped were Eel people (Encheleans), I presume, given such name because they lived around the lake where they could fish for eels.

However, I know that eels are also symbol of temptation and passion. It is interesting here as Harmonia and Cadmus (her husband, a Phoenician Prince, who introduced the first Phoenician alphabet about four thousand years ago) led Encheleans who won over their enemies Illyrians. Thus symbolically they aligned themselves with passion but rose above temptation. They became leaders first and won the war for Encheleans.

Encheleans also went to famous Delphi and plundered the temple, presumably, not overwhelmed by the superstitions of the time,according to the historical records.

The necklace changed hands several times and eventually it was given to a Temple. However, a tyrant stole it to give it his mistress. She gave birth to a son who was said to be mad and he burnt the palace with all the possessions including all the treasures. That was the end of that necklace.

Harmonia myth is a fascinating myth about resistance to harmony, envious destruction of Harmony's quality which is concord and the only way she could elevate herself was eventually through war.

Madness is an interesting concept in Harmonia's myth and it comes across as the only liberation from the cursed necklace that brought misfortune to princess and deity. Is it not just as possible that tyrant's son was not mad but angry enough to put an end to dysfunctional abuse of power? He may have looked mad to some because when person stands up to overwhelming power he does seem to be taking a risk only a madman would. Standing up against the abuse from tyrannical power is often misinterpreted as madness when in fact, it is the only way forward.

I find it fascinating how dictatorial regimes declare dissidents mad and dangerous throughout human history and myths live on.

Beware: The Drunken GMC Legal Assessor

Today, I noted the above sign and it reminded me of beleaguered Esther Cunningham. Esther once sat on Helen Bright's GMC Hearing. Helen complained that Esther was intoxicated. The GMC paid no attention. Anyhow, the Solicitors Regulatory Body issued this judgment [ see below]. This was sent to the General Medical Council who did not bat an eyelid. We asked them whether the GMC would review all hearings where Esther Cunningham was present. The GMC did not respond.

No. 10068-2008
IN THE MATTER OF ESTHER LYNN CUNNINGHAM, solicitor
- AND -
IN THE MATTER OF THE SOLICITORS ACT 1974
______________________________________________
Mr A H B Holmes (in the chair)
Mr J P Davies
Mr S Howe
Date of Hearing: 13th January 2009
______________________________________________
FINDINGS
of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
Constituted under the Solicitors Act 1974
______________________________________________

An application was duly made on behalf of the Solicitors Regulation Authority by George Marriott, solicitor and partner in the firm of Gorvins Solicitors, 4 Davy Avenue, Knowlhill, Milton Keynes, MK5 8NL on 31st July 2008 that Esther Lynn Cunningham, solicitor, might be required to answer the allegations contained in the statement which accompanied the application and that such Order might be made as the Tribunal should think right.

The allegations against the Respondent were that she:-

1. Impaired her integrity and compromised the good repute of the profession and her duty to the Court when appearing before the Grantham Magistrates Court on 8th November 2006 in breach of Rules 1(a), 1(d) and 1(f) Solicitors Practice Rules 1990 (“SPR”) and in breach of Rule 16A SPR by virtue of breaching Part II 2.1(a) of The Law Society code for Advocacy.
2. Failed to act in the best interests of her client when appearing before the Grantham Magistrates Court on 8th November 2006 in breach of Rule 1(c) SPR.
2
3. Brought the profession into disrepute whilst delivering legal training to members of the profession on 17th and 18th May 2007 in breach of Rules 1(c), 1(d) and 1(f) SPR.
4. Failed to provide a prompt response to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (“SRA”) in breach of her duty to cooperate with the SRA under Rule 20.03(1) of The Code.

The application was heard at The Court Room, 3rd Floor, Gate House, 1 Farringdon Street, London, EC4M 7NS on 13th January 2009 when George Marriott appeared as the Applicant, and the Respondent appeared and was represented by Richard Nelson, solicitor in the firm of Business Defence Solicitors, 30-31 Furnival Street, London EC4 1JQ.

The evidence before the Tribunal included the admissions of the Respondent, an email message dated 15th October 2008 from Mrs Justice Macur to the Respondent and a number of references relating to the Respondent’s character.

At the conclusion of the hearing the Tribunal made the following Order:-

The Tribunal Orders that the Respondent, Esther Lynn Cunningham solicitor, be suspended from practice as a solicitor for the period of six months to commence on the 13th day of January 2009 and it further Orders that she do pay the costs of and incidental to this application and enquiry fixed in the sum of £5,750.00.

The facts are set out in paragraphs 1 – 22 hereunder:-

1. The Respondent, born in 1956, was admitted as a solicitor on 16th June 1980 and her name remained on the Roll. The Respondent did not currently have a practising certificate.
2. The Respondent appeared before Grantham Magistrates Court on 8th November 2006 where her cousin, Mr B, faced a charge of being in charge of a dog which was dangerously out of control. The dog in question belonged to the Respondent’s son and was being looked after by Mr B while the Respondent and her son were on holiday.
3. The Clerk to the Justices at Grantham Magistrates Court, Mr P, raised matters relating to the Respondent’s conduct in court with the SRA by a letter dated 10th November 2006, to which he attached the handwritten record of the court usher Ms C.
4. The court usher’s contemporaneous record of the hearing, interpreted in light of Mr P’s letter of complaint and substantiated by accounts of Mr C (a solicitor) and Ms D both of the Crown Prosecution Service, noted that the Respondent:-
�� forcibly kissed another solicitor;
�� aggressively demanded to know the identity of other people within the courtroom;
�� behaved as if drunk;
�� refused to sit down until encouraged to do so by her assistant;
�� interrupted the Magistrates whilst they gave their ruling;
�� was escorted out of the courtroom by a security guard; and


3 after removal from the court demanded to know the identities of the Magistrates, stating that she was a District Judge, before telling the Usher to “fuck off” when she (the Usher) refused to divulge this information.

5. The Respondent also referred to the CPS Prosecutor, Mr C, as a “fuckwit”. This, the Respondent subsequently claimed was not meant to be offensive but was intended to be derogatory. The Respondent has since told the SRA that she used the term as an insult to Mr C’s professional competence. The Respondent stated that Mr C, in his role as a Prosecutor for the CPS, “has been called far worse things in his time”.

6. When asked to explain her conduct by the SRA, the Respondent wrote in a letter dated 5th February 2007 that she “should not have gone” to Court, was “thrown” because she was “too close to the problem” and had accordingly upset the Magistrates by being “forceful” in her objection to the Prosecution’s amendment to Mr B’s charge.

7. Despite it having been recorded in the court usher’s contemporaneous record, the Respondent in her letter of 18th November 2007 denied using abusive language before the Usher although she said she “realise[d] that [she] should not have attended Court as [her] behaviour was likely to be somewhat robust.”

8. The Respondent also denied being drunk, in her letter of 5th February 2007, and told the SRA that she had a migraine, which explained her swaying and the need to hold on to the bench to steady herself. The Respondent further told the SRA that she suffers from a medical condition, the medication for which can make it smell as if she has been drinking.

9. In her letters dated 5th February 2007, 16th July 2007 and 18th November 2007, the Respondent told the SRA that she did not appear before the Court in a legal representative capacity and therefore did not appear as a solicitor. However:-

- prior to the hearing, the Respondent wrote to the CPS on headed paper which noted that she was a Solicitor Advocate;
- the Respondent wrote to the CPS in terms that she represented Mr B;
- the Respondent spoke with the CPS about the charge against Mr B on the morning of the hearing;
- once at Court, the Respondent acted as Mr B’s Advocate by booking in with the Court Usher;
- the Respondent made representations to the Court on behalf of Mr B;
- the Respondent forcefully objected to the amendment of the charge against Mr B;
- all members of the Court considered that the Respondent was there to represent Mr B (the defendant);
4
- the Respondent again telephoned the CPS on behalf of Mr B after the hearing; and
- the Respondent told the SRA that it was “unfortunate on the day an application to up-grade [sic] the charge was made without reference to [her]”.

10. In her letter of 16th July 2007 the Respondent said that she “went into the Magistrate’s [sic] Court to see what was going on” and “decided to call in at the Magistrate’s [sic] to see how proceedings went” with her research assistant “as moral support to see what was happening”.

11. The Respondent delivers legal training to the profession through her company, Cunningham Training Limited (“CTL”), and through other training providers. The Respondent was the tutor on a two day course for solicitors seeking to obtain their Higher Rights of Audience arranged through A, a large legal training provider, on 17th and 18th May 2007.

12. A delegate from the SRA attended the course and noted that the Respondent behaved as if drunk on both days.

13. Other delegates attending the course on the first day were similarly concerned that the Respondent behaved as if drunk and expressed as much to the chief executive of A, Mr L, who attended the second day of the course as an observer.

14. The Respondent appeared annoyed that Mr L was observing her tutoring and twice suggested to the SRA delegate that she should restrain Mr L so that the Respondent could punch him.

15. Mr L, having observed and believing the Respondent to have been under the influence of alcohol to the detriment of her behaviour and performance as a trainer and also noting reports that she had been rude, threatening and abusive to the staff of the hotel at which the course was held, terminated A’s arrangement with the Respondent.

16. In a letter to the SRA dated 26th June 2007 Mr L confirmed that he had previously been alerted to problems caused by the Respondent’s drinking.

17. The SRA wrote to the Respondent on 18th September 2007 to formally raise the matters relating to her conduct at the Higher Rights training course and a response was required by 2nd October 2007.

18. The Respondent replied on 25th September 2007 in terms that she denied all of the matters within the SRA’s letter, did not understand the need for a prompt response to the regulator and would reply to the matters raised in due course, after taking legal advice.

19. Nothing further was heard from the Respondent until 31st October 2007, six weeks after the SRA first raised the matter and following a repeat request for an urgent explanation in a letter of 23rd October 2007, when the Respondent wrote to request a further extension of time in which to respond. The SRA replied on the same day in

5 terms that she had been provided with ample opportunity to consider her response and that it would now proceed to prepare a report for formal adjudication.

20. The Respondent replied to the SRA’s fax on 5th November 2007. She denied avoiding a response to the SRA’s enquiries and stated that she worked away from home and would often not see letters until two or three weeks had passed. She stated that:-

�� she did not act in an inappropriate manner towards a male delegate;
�� the observations which the SRA’s delegate on the course deemed to be inappropriate could be explained by her “outgoing” personality and her “bold” teaching style based on “the American method of NITA”;
�� when she suggested to the SRA delegate that she should pin down Mr L so that the Respondent could punch him, she had done so in jest;
�� she had “[had] to have words” with hotel staff which had prompted the hotel’s complaint to A about the manner in which she had spoken;
�� she did not follow the course agenda or cover all of the required topics because she tailored the course to cover the issues which were assessed;
�� her “general condition of oesophagitis was raised”.

21. The Respondent also told the SRA that she was “particularly stressed for personal reasons at the time”.

22. The SRA prepared a report for formal adjudication which was sent to the Respondent with an invitation to make further comments should she wish to do so. The Respondent replied by a letter dated 18th November 2007 denying that any of the matters alleged arose in the course of her acting as a solicitor and that Practice Rule 1 was therefore not engaged. She denied she was under the influence of alcohol and stated that the impression gained by the SRA delegate and by Mr L was due to the combination of her medical condition and her “extremely informal method [of teaching]”.

The Submissions of the Applicant

23. The Respondent had admitted all the allegations. The Applicant submitted that the Respondent, as a solicitor, is an officer of the Supreme Court and must conduct herself in legal practice (whether for clients or when acting on her own behalf), in her business activities outside legal practice and also in her private life so as not to bring the profession into disrepute.

24. The Applicant indicated that whilst the Respondent had referred to taking medication, the Tribunal was asked to give little credit to the Respondent for this as she had not provided any evidence of it.
6

25. The Applicant submitted that the Respondent had behaved in such a way so as to impair her integrity, to compromise the good repute of the profession and in breach of her duty to the Court.

26. The Applicant indicated he wished to claim his costs and these had been agreed with the Respondent in the sum of £5,750.00.

The Submissions of the Respondent

27. The Respondent confirmed all the allegations were admitted. The Respondent also accepted that there had been no admission previously of her abuse of alcohol and today was the first day that such an admission had been made. The Respondent submitted that it was widely accepted alcohol dependency is an illness and often, a person suffering from alcohol dependency is misguided, in denial and lacks judgement.

28. The Respondent submitted that 2006 and 2007 were a low point for her and this had caused her to act in the way that she had done. She was extremely embarrassed, ashamed and apologetic about her behaviour and hoped that this was the final stage of her humiliation.

29. The Respondent had had a distinguished career, having worked her way up, not only working in teams but offering assistance to other solicitors and she was now recognised as a good Deputy District Judge. There had been a number of events which had caused particular stress to the Respondent and two of these were very significant. The first was the diagnosis of her son’s illness which was very difficult for her to come to terms with and the other significant stress was an abusive relationship. This had now ended but there was still recent contact which was causing the Respondent continuing distress. The person involved had indeed contacted the Respondent this morning to try and make her more nervous about today’s hearing. The alcohol dependency was the Respondent’s attempt to try and escape from all these problems.

30. In relation to the incidents at Grantham Magistrates Court, the matter had related to an order for the destruction of the Respondent’s son’s dog and the Respondent was very emotional. In order to deal with the hearing, she had had some alcohol to allay her distress. The incident relating to the forcible kissing of another solicitor was also distressing for the Respondent as the solicitor involved was a colleague she had known for thirty years.

31. The Respondent submitted that her actions had taken place when she was not in control and since that time she had sought counselling and was receiving treatment for her alcohol dependency. She had been reinstated to her judicial position such was her recovery. The Tribunal was referred to an email message from Mrs Justice Macur dated 15th October 2008 which confirmed the Respondent could recommence sitting. It was submitted the Respondent had come to terms with events and had now dealt with them.

32. This was a tragic case and the Tribunal was asked to show understanding and sympathy whilst acknowledging the Respondent’s behaviour was not acceptable.
7
33. Concerning the training course, the Respondent had not undertaken any training since the incidents referred to. It was submitted that when the Respondent had said to the delegate on the course that she should hold Mr L whilst the Respondent hit him, this was a humorous comment with no intention of violence being delivered whatsoever.

34. The Tribunal was referred to the number of references produced in support of the Respondent’s character. These showed that she was highly regarded in her judicial capacity and had a reputation for being polite but firm. The Respondent was a caring individual who would normally deal with matters with dignity and confidence and not in the manner referred to by the Applicant today.

35. The events relating to the allegations had taken place when the Respondent was not in control; 2007 had been a very bad year for her, she had suffered a stroke as well as dealing with her other problems. It was submitted that tremendous willpower and control is required in order to overcome alcoholism and the Respondent had shown that she had this. She was now performing her judicial functions again, and indeed that was her sole source of income as she had not undertaken any training since the incidents complained of.

36. The Tribunal was asked to deal with the Respondent with leniency bearing in mind the Respondent had acknowledged her problems, dealt with them and now got them under control. The Respondent also confirmed that the Applicant’s costs had been agreed at £5,750.00.

The Findings of the Tribunal

37. The Tribunal found the allegations to have been substantiated. They were not contested.

38. This had not been an easy case for the Tribunal to determine the correct sanction to impose. Mr Nelson, on behalf of the Respondent, had understandably urged the Tribunal to exercise leniency. However, the Tribunal had to look carefully at the circumstances in which the Respondent found herself here today, especially her admitted misconduct whilst acting as a solicitor and advocate in the Magistrates Court. That conduct was simply not acceptable and could not go unpunished.

39. It was only today that the Respondent had given an indication that she admitted the allegations and previously she had denied the allegations although it was appreciated that this could have been due to her alcohol dependency.

40. The Tribunal acknowledged the considerable difficulties the Respondent had had and was pleased to note she had begun treatment and wished the Respondent well with her recovery. The Tribunal also took into account the references provided. However, notwithstanding this, the Tribunal felt that the Respondent’s behaviour had affected the reputation of the profession, so much so that a number of complaints had been made about it. It was vital that solicitors acted professionally and with integrity at all times in order to maintain the confidence and trust placed by the public on members of the profession. The Respondent’s behaviour had brought the profession into disrepute and could not go unpunished. In the unanimous view of the Tribunal, the
8 correct sanction in this case was to impose a suspension from practice for a period of six months starting today.

41. The Tribunal Ordered that the Respondent, Esther Lynn Cunningham of xxx solicitor, be suspended from practice as a solicitor for the period of six months to commence on the 13th day of January 2009 and it further Ordered that she do pay the costs of and incidental to this application and enquiry fixed in the sum of £5,750.00.

Dated this 17th day of April 2009

On behalf of the Tribunal
A H B Holmes
Chairman

DYSFUNCTIONAL SERIES: ARTICLE 2 - FEAR OF CONFLICT

Left: Ares (God of War) with Phobos (God of Panic, his son) and Nike (Godess of Victory, his daughter).

One of the core features of dysfunctional human units is fear of conflict. This is pathological in the sense that what needs to be said and done is not said and done because there is fear of punishment, ridicule or severe criticism.

There are several phobias closely related to fear of conflict such as Allodoxaphobia (fear of opinions), and Rhabdophobia (fear of being severely punished). However, in every day life people may act out of habit without even having any awareness when they are frightened. In other words fears can be set in as parts of personality.
From a psychodynamic point of view one would say that traumatic life experiences lead to fear of conflict. Thus a child learns that standing up to adults is very dangerous even though there is apparent weakness in adult(s) such as stupidity, cruelty, lying or abuse. Therefore, from the bad experience there is expectation of the future conflict being laden with anxiety and punishment.
I have certainly seen cases where speaking up against the abuse led to murders but also victory against the abuser(s) eventually.
To overcome fear of conflict one can take several measures. Hypnosis is a good way to learn relaxation and positive visualizations experiences where one is a winner and not a loser.
Self-hypnosis is another way for imaginative individuals who can design their own "experiences" to visualize.
Daily treatment for fear is my prescription. This involves being open to new experiences even if it is very simple such as taking a new walk or route when driving. Enriching everyday life experience is not difficult even if it requires an effort to start with. It could be cooking new dishes every day. Doing new sports even without the need to commit to it permanently is helpful to eradicate habitual reaction to new things with fear.
Excellent managers know about psychodynamic approach to managing their staff. A lot of problems at work arise out of fear of inadequacy and fear of inferiority. These fears are often not conscious and can manifest in a number of ways:
1. Psychosomatic problems such as headaches, stomaches
2. Hostility to others
3. Feeling depressed
4. Not able to sleep properly
5. Avoidance behaviours (eg of work duties, but can be family duties or in other relationships)
6. Feeling anxious
7. Anger
8. Aggression
9. Procrastination
10. Lying
11. Loss of appetite
12. Losing things/Forgetting
13. Embarrassment, shame and guilt leading to a lack of commitment
The above list is probably not complete, but above are the behavioural patterns that came to my mind promptly when thinking about the fear of inadequacy and inferiority.
It is easier for people, in general, to face up to sadness first, anger second, but fears can be most resistant as it is, of course, frightening.
To enable individuals to leave dysfunctional social units an escape route is required and depending on the situation there are a variety of options.
For some people it may mean changing everything: home, friends, and country.



It is possible to introduce changes to dysfunctional units and the work takes years and commitment.
The institutional fear of conflict may be based on economic interests but also staff mentality favouring quiet life and secure salary. Some professions like medicine may appear attractive as there is pseudo security of earnings combined with all the excitement of medical emergencies.

There may be fear that innocent people would be punished if challenge is made eg to the system. For example, what would happen to poor people's health if there is more private health provision? Some people may never want to even talk about it in fear that it could be bad with no guaranteed health provision for all that has high quality.
There are different ways in which individuals can protect themselves when fears are reasonable: such as finding outside support. Children can call charities in some countries, or talk to their teachers when in a situation where fear of conflict is great.

Adults can have professional advice and help (such as medical and legal) but all of those can fail you if you have stumbled inadvertently across system fault(s).
Even professional politicians have known for thousands of years that there is nothing more dangerous than attempting social change. For that reason alone some people do little, some die and some become legends.
Greek mythology is of interest here. Aphrodite, Goddess of Love had several children with Ares, God of war:
twins: Phobos (God of Panic) and Deimos (God of Terror)
Eris (Goddess of Hate)
Nike (Goddess of Victory)
Harmonia (Goddess of Harmony).
It is rather obvious which children went to war with Ares.
Harmonia was probably the only one in Greek mythology who at her wedding ceremony had all the Gods attending. However, as she was the product of adulterous affair and Aphrodite's husband knew that, he gave her as a wedding present a cursed necklace that would mean endless tragedy to her or anyone else who possessed it. She suffered one tragedy after another and had to go into exile to Illyria. There she and her husband had conflicts with local tribes but won at the end. After that she and her husband metamorphosed into dragons to be carried to Elysium., heaven for heroes.
Thus, even Harmonia could not escape conflict and only became immortal and happy by engaging in conflict.

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY 8th March 2010

It was Clara Zetkin, famous German Socialist politician who suggested that there should be International Women's Day.

During period of increased industrialization working conditions for women were very hard and many have died early some as the result of accidents at work, others from exhaustion and poverty.

Demonstrations on International Women's Day in Russia in 1917 were the first stage of Russian Revolution.

Alexandra Kollontai, Russian feminist asked Lenin to make 8th March political public holiday to celebrate women.

There are now a number of countries where it is now officially a public holiday.

In other countries various activities take place ranging from political plays in theatres to political demonstrations and celebrations. In some countries women receive gifts from colleagues at work and at home from family members.

Oppression of women is a big problem today. There is violence against women, sexist bias in administration of justice, businesses and inequality in pay (even in medicine and legal professions).

General Medical Council in London never had a woman president in its entire history. Political activists, men and women are sent to have psychiatric examinations in full knowledge of the stigma attached to mental illness.

In UK, with religious government in power, the number of women doctors referred to psychiatrists by the regulatory bodies has been twice as large compared to male doctors (2007 figures) when standardized for the referral rate.

Expert Witnesses who essentially abuse their powers and make false diagnoses on women doctors have been allowed to continue practising fully protected by the institutional prejudice and power.

No country in the world has managed to achieve equality of opportunity for women and men. Sweden, Norway and USA are regarded as ahead of others.

Women are 70% of the poor in this world, and 64% of the illiterate population. 39 million girls are denied even primary school education.
Every day 1500 women die in childbirth in the world somewhere.

In UK 30 000 women are sacked from their work when employer learns woman is pregnant.

Only 4 of FTSE 100 companies have female Chief Executive.

Only 10% of medical academics are women in UK.

Dr Helen Bright chosen as Parliamentary Candidate For the Liberal Party

"Equality, Justice and Accountability"

Dr Helen Bright, Consultant Psychiatrist and Human Rights Activist succeeded today in her bid to be Parliamentary Candidate for the Liberal Party in Ipswich UK. Dr Helen Bright has always been a great supporter of equality, transparency and justice for all. She also believes in the Liberal Party's current motto

"The Liberal Party exists to build a Liberal Society in which every citizen shall possess liberty, property and security and none shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. Its chief care is for the rights and opportunities of the individual, and in all spheres it sets freedom first".

Dr Helen Bright's hard work, determination and perseverance has enabled her in her current spectacular success. Doctors4Justice and all its members would like to extend our gratitude for all her hard work in supporting doctors and patients behind the scenes of this website. She has challenged oppressive and draconian organizations like the General Medical Council and continues to fight for equality for all in the National Health Service.

This wonderful success is the first step on the political ladder for Dr Helen Bright. She will hopefully formulate health policies so that there is honesty, transparency and accountability in the National Health Service. We hope that this will change the medical world for the better.

Doctors4Justice would like to thank the Liberal Party for supporting Dr Bright. We would also like to forward our congratulations to Dr Helen Bright for her success. We hope this success will be the first of many others to come.

Related Links

Join the Liberal Party.

CHRE. Council of Healthcare Regulatory Excellence. An ineffective super-regulator

Silencing Complaints Against the GMC

Long ago, Dr David Roberts wrote a piece called " A Load of Crap".

He quotes

"CHRE Chairman Jane Wesson said: “We have been established as a lean organisation that has a clear mandate to improve the quality of regulation in the healthcare sector and act as the guardian of public interest.

“It is a challenging role and I am delighted by the progress we have made in a short period of time. Our aim is to help regulators improve and become more responsive to the public’s expectations. I believe we are now well placed to build upon the significant changes that have already been implemented, support the regulators in their drive to implement good practice and increase their effectiveness in protecting the public.”

Many years later, we find that Dr Robert's sentiments were not wrong. This organisation was originally called CHRP. It was a ill thought out name because everyone in the medical profession dubbed it CRAP. Even Arpad Toth of GMC v Toth fame dubbed it Crap. The body infamously allowed David Jarman to "jump" off the register by citing a little known condition called " anxiety related to the GMC". So, its pet name stuck to it and it is still dubbed Crap for obvious reasons.

Following this embarassing name, the organisation decided to rebrand itself into CHRE. Sadly their functions did not change. On the year of its inception we all spotted that those who worked in the GMC started to work for the CHRE. One such boggle eyed official went from stuffing up cases at the GMC to the CHRE. Her name was Isabel Nisbet. One has to remember the GMC was heavily criticised for his malfunctioning environment in the 5th Report of the Shipman Inquiry. It was criticised by Isobel Allen and yet the CHRE failed to robustly investigate its performance.

We then move onto one Michael Andrews of the CHRE. This is what the CHRE website says on him. These sentences are quite important because Mr Andrews and his subordinates have a habit of brushing all complaints against the GMC away by misleading them all on what the CHRE can actually do.

So Michael himself tells us what they can do here.

"Michael Andrews manages the Scrutiny and Quality Team. The Scrutiny and Quality team is responsible for scrutinising the work of the regulatory bodies. They do this through the performance review, reviewing final fitness to practice decisions, auditing the initial stages of the fitness to practise process and consideration of complaints about regulators. Through this work, they identify and share good practice amongst the regulators.

Mike Andrews has previously worked in the Fitness to Practise Directorate of the General Medical Council, as well as at the Office for Standards in Education and the Home Office."

One of the main complaints has been that the CHRE has told everyone that they cannot act on their complaints by way of considering the wider aspect of the GMC. Over the years, multiple complaints have been made to the GMC which have never been acted on. We have asked the questions "why"?

The Legislation that covers the CHRE is listed here. I refer to the National Health Service Reform and Healthcare Professions Act 2002

I specifically refer to Section 26

1) Except as mentioned in subsections (3) to (6), the Council may do anything which appears to it to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of, or in connection with, the performance of its functions.

(2) The Council may, for example, do any of the following—

(a) investigate, and report on, the performance by each regulatory body of its functions,

(b) where a regulatory body performs functions corresponding to those of another body (including another regulatory body), investigate and report on how the performance of such functions by the bodies in question compares,

(c) recommend to a regulatory body changes to the way in which it performs any of its functions.

It is therefore crystal clear that the CHRE can actually take some action. Indeed, as you can see from the NMC Report, they did take a lot of action. They have thoroughly investigated the NMC and found they are inadequate and inconsistent. The CHRE though fails to move on the General Medical Council. Vast array of excuses are made when members of the public and doctors raise concerns with them. These excuses are essentially without basis and just a means of discarding complaints.

It is though interesting that the man in charge of scrutising the General Medical Council used to work for them in the past. Perhaps this misguided loyalty to his previous employer still continues. This prior involvement naturally has some impact in his decision making process. There is a recent press release stating that he is due to go onto work at the General Social Care Council. Perhaps then he will return to the CHRE and ensure that the GSCC is not held accountable as well. So essentially, Michael Andrews has served the General Medical Council well as his last report on the GMC was a glowing one.

So we can conclude that the CHRE is far from independent. It has now developed the habit of shifting away complaints about the General Medical Council so that this organization escapes scrutiny. The irony is that this super regulator was set up after the Bristol Inquiry but yet can be seen to ignore legitimate concerns about the safety of patients, maladministration by the General Medical Council and misfeasance in public office.

Their Chief Executive' initial aim was

"Our aim is to help regulators improve and become more responsive to the public’s expectations."

We note that this super regulator has failed in its aims.

Anyhow, this does not deter any of us. We suggest that everyone who has a concern about the GMC should email them their concerns. Please also copy us in to the complaint so we can monitor the responses provided by the CHRE. All their contacts are listed here. Of course, it appears to be beyond the CHRE to move with the times and ask for legislation to be altered so they do have the powers to ensure the GMC behaves itself.

DYSFUNCTIONAL SERIES: ARTICLE 1 SECRECY

I promised sometime ago that I would write a series of articles on dysfunctional behaviours and how to beat those.


In the first three articles I shall address the core characteristics of dysfunctional behaviour. The first one is on secrecy.


I chose secrecy because it is one of the core features of dysfunctional families/human social units/organizations that enable victimization, and give power and control to the abusive people. Secrecy is essential for the dysfunction to continue.


The best way to understand it is in terms of fear which drives the need for secrecy. Thus, for example, a child who suffers abuse is sworn to secrecy or something terrible would happen to somebody they love and depend on e.g. parent, for example the abuser threatens to kill one of the parents.


In fact, secrecy enables the abusive person to continue his/her abusive behaviour as they are basically not found out.


Organizational secrecy is also based on the same principle that if something was to become known the whole organization would be shut down i.e. seize to exist.


Truth has not stopped people believing all sorts of things that are not true because human beings can be driven by emotion alone. Therefore, mere disclosures do not necessarily have profound effects.


In medical institutions there is a lot of secrecy. There are various files that various people keep about various people. One does not know until it is too late or even ever what defamatory comments might have been planted there for keeps.


I discovered only recently, that it is perfectly possible for Medical Directors to telephone the General Medical Council and chat with investigators fishing for information on doctor they may not like and fear before they decode to stab the doctor in the back. Verbal complaints and various false assertions have been made which are never communicated to the accused but have prejudicial effect on the investigator(s).


Surely, there must be something in the mind of the person accepting false allegations readily without questioning them?


There could be quite simply prejudices such as that women are mad and one should expect irrational behaviour from women doctors. This is, certainly, reflected in the irrational referrals of women doctors for psychiatric examinations by the regulatory body's Expert Witnesses who do not adhere to any internationally accepted diagnostic criteria. Women who have their own political opinions have become subjects of hideous allegations before the regulators who keep many allegations just to themselves.


Secret meetings have taken place between the professional regulator and National Health Service Trust managers that doctor knows nothing about, and is not represented in any way during those meetings. Prejudicial material can be discussed freely and no charges ever made, but the bad impression about the doctor remains nonetheless.


One way to break the secrecy is to be open about it whenever one finds evidence of such behaviours.


Data Protection Act 1998 allows access to data held on subject if he/she asks for it in writing from the Data Controller and pays the fee.


There are also Freedom of Information Acts which allow public access to some information held by public bodies.


Using both Acts one can find more information but dysfunctional people do not provide it readily. Seeking information can precipitate destruction of documents, new breaches of both Acts (FOIA and DPA) as well as the disclosure of some of the documents. It can take a long time to obtain the documentation. There could be various appeals and court hearings. Some staff run away to seek employment somewhere else in order to avoid having to provide the documentation.


Some organizations do not provide anything at all or refuse for many months to accept requests even by registered post. It is good to see that Information Commissioners publish who has been found guilty of offending.


Another favourite are the secret references which should be illegal, in my opinion. I met someone who was given a reference in a sealed envelope to give to a prospective employer, but she had a bad feeling about the manager who wrote it. She asked me what to do. I told her to open the envelope. When she did she found her manager wrote that she lacked mathematical ability. In fact, she had a degree in mathematics and an IQ so high that it was outside the reliable range. Now, she is a Chief Executive of a large organization and has excellent reputation, but she had to ask someone else for the reference first.


There are many secrets such as secret discrimination in public policies which are against the law, secret bonding (eg old boy networking, racism, sexism and so on) or secret support for the offenders (protectionism).

When it comes to discovering secrets have at least two plans and do not rely on authorities. Even if you have the support of the authority such as courts you may find that some people do not respect their orders at all. So have a plan B and C.

Transparent Legal Appraisal. Paul Garlick QC, Robert Jay QC, Richard Price, Paul Pickering.

Revalidating Lawyers

The legal profession should have a health warning stuck on top of their heads. My advice to anyone in trouble - first avoid getting into trouble and secondly don't hire a lawyer and pay for them. I once wrote contribution on the Times Law Blog regarding my experiences with lawyers. Of course, I am not the only one with this experience. When comparing notes, numerous of my friends and colleagues have had similar experiences. Anyhow, this was my experience as listed in the comments section of the Times Blog.

Those who have represented me are Paul Garlick QC in 2009 and Robert Jay QC in 2004. Believe me even if you are dead, don't hire Paul Garlick QC. Solicitors representing were Paul Pickering of Birchall Blackburn and Richard Price in 2004. Lawyers aren't nice people. You start to discover this the more you dissect their conceited personalities. More on these people in the up and coming book The Discreet Inquiry.

Dear Sirs,

I was interested in the above piece regarding lawyers. As an NHS Whistleblower, I have been represented by a number of lawyers. I have found that I have been forced to do a lot of background work for the case[s].

In 2004, I created my own legal bundles while I paid my lawyers in excess of £30,000. Despite being paid such high rates neither bought us lunch.

My barrister at the time did some minimal work and went away early Friday afternoon. Luckily we won in court so the minimal reading must have worked. We did though spend large quantities of time correcting his errors in the skeleton arguments before we faxed the document. Two of us sat in front of our computers puzzled as to how we were going to tell a QC that he had got it wrong. Nevertheless, the rapport with the judge worked and we won.

In a memorable case in the past, my lawyers went on holiday before the hearing. No one had read or prepared the documents. Again, the QC's Skeleton was full of errors which we then corrected. We listed the spelling errors by email to him. They were still not corrected days later. At the time, he had got his client's name wrong and called me Dr Patel. There were factual errors as well which we had to nit pick as well. This QC did not take well to corrections but neither did he familiarise himself with any of the legal material. In his view, overnight work would do the trick. It didn't of course.

Neither could find the papers in court so I had to do it for them. In court, when I warned them of what the opposition was going to do - they both gaffawed at me. When the opposition did do what I predicted they failed to apologise and continued to say how right they were. My barrister was instructed to argue a issue one way and his arrogance decided he would argue it his way. We lost the point. It was a simple point.

A loss in court did not matter to them because to them I was simply another client. I walked out of court that day mid hearing because I could not tolerate the arrogance of my legal team, the fact they were not listening and worst still, the fact they were losing. As I walked out of the door, I was hooked onto the coat hanger statue of Lord Woolf. I looked at the wired Lord Woolf and decided that the statue could have done better than my lawyers. I could have just taken him into court.

Following the above, even the judge made no less than 25 mistakes as he had not read the documents. Letter dates were wrong etc. Even the date on the order was wrong.

All parties gaffawed about the internet when they understood nothing about it at all. I was bemused that so many highly intelligent lawyers could get so many things wrong. I wondered what innocent men stuck in prisons do with this lax attitude to the law. I had never seen anything like it. I wasn't in prison of course but what a spectacular disaster. If only the public could see what happens in court rooms.

Apparently I discover that judicial mistakes cannot be corrected. Amazing! Now I have to live with the spelling mistakes, the fact that she is called a he and wrong letter dates etc.

I believe I am a reasonable person. I simply expect my legal team to defend me, I expect a judge to have read the documents and I don't expect a series of mistakes. I was shocked and it took me a while to recover.

As a doctor, if I had made as many errors, I would be struck off.

I of course know that there is no accountability in the legal profession and it is essentially pointless making a complaint about anyone.

I must say that I am disappointed by the legal profession. I should not be unfair and say all lawyers are terrible - they aren't. Most are of the view that they are better than us mortals. I can read a law book, try and understand case law etc. Can they read a medical book? Three lawyers failed to define what a speciality doctor was called.

There doesn't appear to be any pride in ones work.

My advice - never get involved with the legal profession. It should have a health warning stuck on it. If there is a good lawyer, it is often like searching for a needle in the haystack. On a plus point, the RCJ does have rather dapper and dashing barristers. At £450 plus VAT, there has to be some talent.

Copyright and ownership of this post Dr Rita Pal not Doctors4Justice.net

MEDICAL MOBBING

Medical Mobbing is a phenomenon which occurs when a doctor is attacked by a group of individuals who can be all of one species (doctors) or a mixture of different professionals, patients and relatives. It can be fatal. The term comes from biology to describe the behaviour of animals usually birds when they feel threatened.

In medical profession excellence can provoke mobbing. Doctor who has integrity can be a threat or the one who is extra popular with staff or patients. Like in bullying there maybe failure to recognize what is going on and only years later individual is capable of recognizing how it started or why. One of the reasons why it is not immediately recognized for what it is the respect for authority figures and it is said, low self-esteem. Does that mean doctor should not have worked at the place at all?

Medical mobbing can be stopped but it requires a change of mentality from bystanders to a group of doctors objecting.

Some doctors are more vulnerable than others, for example: locums, foreign doctors, part-timers, those with a successful private practice and those with novel controversial treatments or just simply being more honest is enough as well as being beautiful. Whistle blowing is obviously something that excites mobbers more than anything.

Dr Lawrence Huntoon, American Neurologist, has written several editorials about sham peer reviews which are, I would say, in the category of regulatory bullying, the nastiest form of bullying. Read some of his editorials here:

Sham Peer Review: The Unjust "OBJECTIVE TEST "

The Abuse of Disruptive Physician Clause

Revalidating Lawyers.

Collins J Develops His Fins

The United Kingdom is filled with incompetent, arrogant, greedy lawyers who find themselves in a position of power when dealing with patients or the medical profession. Most assume that they know the law and that no one else can can read.

I recently read the Midstaffordshire NHS Foundation Inquiry. It is of course a laughable report that bares no resemblance to real medicine. The GMC have decided to consider action against the doctors who failed to report the concerns at Mid Staffordshire.

Robert Francis QC stated

"Where unacceptable practice is identified or alleged on reasonable grounds, it is important that swift action is taken to protect patient safety and public confidence in the service provided by the hospital, whether by way of remedial training or other action, referral to the NCAAS, or referral to the General Medical Council. Such action must include suspension of the practitioner, where such a step is necessary to protect patient safety and the public interest, while the matter is fully investigated"

I believe the same test should be applied to lawyers. For the sake of all barristers at Robert Francis' QC's chambers who have failed doctors, slithered from the truth, touted the sick doctors defence, I have developed an alternative statement

" Where unacceptable practice is identified or alleged on reasonable grounds, it is important that swift action is taken to protect public safety and public confidence in the service provided by the solicitor or barrister, whether by way of remedial training or other action, referral to the SRA is essential. Such action must include the suspension of the legal practitioner, where such a step is necessary to protect patient safety and public interest, while the matter is fully investigated"

Complaints against solicitors have risen by a third according to the Law Society Gazette. The SRA's performance is listed here. In 2002, barristers faced a sharp increase in complaints. Beaumont considers the fact that the Bar Council complaints process should be made more tolerable. Beaumont was sent the widening concept of misconduct as applied to doctors in R v GMC Ex Parte Pal. He made little comment. We therefore conclude that he is of the view that doctors deserve the complaints procedure they get and processes for a barrister must be "Fair". Beaumont has essentially remained tight lipped on the slipshod approach by the GMC. He says that the professions are over regulated. Perhaps I can agree with this but I can assure you that lawyers are not regulated enough. Beaumont will not approve of this concept but mine is a relatively personal comment and I am entitled to this. It is a fact of life that numerous barristers have remained silent regarding the human rights abuses that have continued at the General Medical Council. They have continued to take their money and run. There is nothing fair about the General Medical Council and few barristers have protected doctors from it. Therefore there is no reason why we should sidle up to Beaumont's viewpoint or sympathize with him.

It is the barristers who are registered with the Bar Council who flout their own conduct rules when representing against and for doctors. Many who represent innocent junior doctors simply cannot be bothered. Why bother when the defence unions will pay them anyway? Many doctors are simply allowed to flounder and are left with their career in tatters while the lawyer makes a bagful of money then disappears. These barristers rely on the fact that very few of them are admonished by the Bar Council. It is this lack of accountability that gives barristers the right to abuse their clients.

In my view, I believe that lawyers should be subjected to the same tests as doctors. For instance, I believe that all barristers and lawyers should be subjected to yearly revalidation and appraisals to be assessed by the SRA and Bar Council respectively. Dr Helen Bright laughed at the pitiful mere 16 hours of Continuous Professional Development that lawyers have to do. No wonder lawyers fail to read most documents.

In my view, Dame Janet Smith invented revalidation therefore the entire legal profession should be able to work by it. There is no reason whatsoever that the judges, solicitors and barristers should be unaccountable to the public. The General Teaching Council is considering checks on skills, there is no reason lawyers cannot have their skills such as reading and writing assessed. Afterall, they all offer a public service [ albeit quite badly in some cases] and the public should have a say in how they practice. Moreover, all the complaints against them should be held on databases so that they remain accessible by any court or authority.

Moreover, I am of the view that all medical regulatory cases should apply to lawyers as well. Doctors have to be subjected to to Bolton v Law Society. For this reason the widened view of misconduct [ R v GMC Ex Parte Pal] as applied to doctors has been sent for consideration by all regulatory bodies. In this case, misconduct no longer has to be " professional" in nature. It is only fair in love and war that lawyers live by the case law they created. It follows that any allegation that is capable of going to the integrity of the solicitor or barrister should be automatically investigated. Moreover, after the allegation passes the initial stage , a copy of the actual complaint should be sent to all courts, anyone the legal officer has dealings with and any members of the public they have represented in the past and the future. Comments should then be invited from all these people. Lawyers should not have any objection to this because members of their profession have drafted/agreed to the Fitness to Practise Rules 2004 of the General Medical Council.

Moreover, Collins J and Scott Baker LJ have both stated that there is "no prejudice" in this widened disclosure. They have also stated that every doctor should declare cleared complaints on their application forms. In my view, every barrister, solicitor and judge should declare every cleared complaint to the Courts and the claimant and defendant in every case they do. The subject matter of the complaint should be declared and this should not cause them any prejudice given the judgments by these two learned judges.

Solicitors, barristers and judges should have no objections to this widened disclosure. Indeed, every medical professional and member of the public should try it. Any complaint that is made against a solicitor or a barrister should be sent to all the courts they work in and to all solicitor firms and clients. It should then be posted on the internet for responses from the public. This is of course the essence of revalidation and appraisal. If their performance does not come up to scratch, their practicing licenses should be immediately suspended [as specified by Robert Francis QC above].

The first victims of complaints of this kind should be the General Medical Council's solicitors and barristers. Please forward any complaints or concerns about them and we will be happy to place this online on a up and coming website called iwantgreatlawyers.com :).

Conflict of Interest - Claimant in R v General Medical Council Ex Parte Pal.

Dedicated to

1. Lord Justice Scot Baker [retired]
2. Justice Sir Andrew Collins [ Still not a Lord Justice and we wonder why]
3. Mark Shaw QC Counsel for the GMC.

Dr Esperanza Cabal acts contrary to Catholic Church wishes

Dr Esperanza Cabal sworn in By President Arroyo (on the left) as Acting Health Secretary in January 2010 already has Catholic Church Bishops asking for her dismissal. On Valentine Day she ordered distribution of condoms which Catholic Church opposes and claims that it would not help the spread of HIV/AIDS.
Philippines have 40% of population earning about $2.00 a day and population control as well as health improvement are obvious needs. Last year Philippines recorded over 800 new cases of AIDS.
In UK Labour administration did not have such a problem with condoms but they certainly do when it comes to the wearing of religious uniforms in inappropriate settings. I am not talking about fetish here, but the needs of mentally ill to be given free space to trust their doctors and nurses as well as their social workers who do not wear uniforms unless they happen to be Catholic Mother Superior.
When Mother Superior gets a job in UK as a social worker all the ethics flies out of the windows and Health Ministers away from their jobs.
Pathetic state of affairs. Maybe UK should have a woman with courage to put the right policies through rather than kneeling Health Secretaries who put their personal interests first and patients second.

Support Elsie's Law

PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION ELSIE's LAW

On November 21st 1999 Elsie Devine died at the Gosport War Memorial Hospital her life was shorten without justification or logic. Elsie was not a lone in meeting her fate at the hands of Dr Jane Barton there were many other elderly.

Elsie did not have a incline when she kissed her son good night that she was already on the terminal pathway and that the very next day she would be drugged unconscious and nor did her family. Elsie did not deserve her life to be terminated, let alone without her or her family’s knowledge. Elsie is one in many and this practicing must be stopped.

After 4 Police investigations, an Inquest and a GMC hearing it is clear that Elsie’s life was terminated at the will of one person; the Doctor who saw her as a bed blocker and worthless.We the undersigned petitioned the Prime Minister to create a law that states caring professionals alone do not have the legal right to start a patient on drugs that are included in the Liverpool Care Pathway, without the consent of either the patient or the next of kin.

Drugs used in the Liverpool Care Pathway have been under much speculation. Although an audit of Care of the Dying, by the Marie Curie and the Royal College of Physicians in 2009 found that nearly 4000 terminal patients found the framework to be of high quality, there is no doubt that some patients remain at risk.(Full Audit)) There is room in current practice for elderly, vulnerable patients to be started on the LCP without their or their family’s consent; it is not good enough to assume that in all hospitals, hospices and care homes that conversations will take place and that patients and families will be kept informed. The audit reveals that two thirds of the 3,893 patients whose deaths were assessed needed no continuous infusion of medication, and all by 4% only needed low doses of opiates.

However, there have been cases where patients have been started on high doses of opiates and sedatives via infusion and died prematurely.

We should not have to fight for justice after death; the law should be there to protect us when we are alive.

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Elsies-Law/

When the ‘system’ fails who will protect us when we are too vulnerable to protect ourselves. Read the full story here.

GMC Reported to National Bullying Helpline

The General Medical Council has officially been reported to the National Bullying Helpline for Bullying, Victimisation, Harassment and Discrimination. For sometime, we have been concerned about the violation of civil liberties by this dysfunctional regulatory body. They continue to deny innocent doctors the right to pursue their vocation. The General Medical Council is the right hand of the Government. It has been suppressing free speech and silencing whistleblowers to prevent concerns from being raised, addressed and investigated. Please review the email below. If any doctor wishes to report the General Medical Council, please contact the National Bullying Helpline here. We urge all doctors to report the GMC if they have been subjected to mistreatment.

----- Original Message -----
From: Rita Pal
To: info@nationalbullyinghelpline.co.uk
Cc: doctors4justice-@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 4:27 PM
Subject: Reporting the General Medical Council for excessive bullying and Victimisation


Dear Sirs,

RE: Reporting the General Medical Council for excessive bullying, victimisation, discrimination and harassment.

As part of Doctors4Justice.net, I would like to formally report the General Medical Council as a regulatory body who has victimised many innocent doctors. A large number of them have reported the GMC to the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the CHRE. My colleague Dr Helen Bright, a Consultant Psychiatrist has been bullied through the process of "investigation" of frivolous concerns. Each time she has tried to raise concerns, they have used those concerns as part of her mental state. Despite a normal psychiatric assessment, the GMC have insisted that her views amount to some kind of mental health issue. In my own case, R Pal v GMC 2004, I was subjected to extensive victimisation and harassment by the General Medical Council. My background as a Staffordshire Whistleblower did not help matters. They have continued to take up frivolous complaints against me, they include

1. A typographical error. They admitted to conducting a Discreet Inquiry into my so called mental state based on the "tone of my letters" raising justified and evidence based concerns relating to elderly care. I sued them in Defamation, Breach of the DPA for the unwarranted and unjustified data written about me.
2. They conducted a 6 month investigation for " defamation". I had apparently defamed a doctor. They then admitted by letter that they could not deal with defamation.
3. They further investigated me for 6 months in 2007 and purposely and maliciously misinformed my Trust who subsequently fired me. The complaints were on a link to a public document and the fact I was working as a " psychiatrist". The GMC had no objection to me using the term " psychiatrist" in 2004 as referred to in my reference by a GMC panellist. They conducted a slipshod inquiry, resulting in the loss of my job, my references and the requirement to declare this investigation on Employment Application Forms. Needless to say, I was rendered unemployed, financially crippled and then cleared by the GMC. This resulted in my administrative erasure for non payment of fees.

I am describing these events because a number of my colleagues are being subjected to needless draconian measures. A junior doctor wrote intemperate emails to criticise the training system. It was said that he had a mental health issue. He was referred to 2 psychiatrists and cleared but with the side note of calling him "misfit".

They then took up qualified letters written to a lawyer at NCAS [ he tried to defend himself] and this was taken up as "misconduct". Essentially, they have given him 18 months suspension, told him not to criticise the GMC, told him to alter his tone and destroyed his career as a up and coming bright surgeon. By comparison, Dr Jane Barton who ended the lives of many elderly people was not given such a sanction at all.

Given the disparity in statistics between foreign and British doctors as listed since 1994, it is very concerning that the GMC are currently running two versions of the analysis of misconduct. One appears to apply to "Misfits" and the other to doctors they approve of. I am happy to provide you with this evidence as the CHRE have agreed to look into this matter briefly as a review issue.

Overall, my concern is regarding the behaviour once described by Harris HHJ as like a " totalitarian regime". It appears that innocent doctors careers are being threatened while bad and negligent doctors are being let off. I have all the documentation to substantiate my views. The GMC is also very much aligned with the Labour Government with a number of Labour Party panellists sitting on doctors hearings. It appears that the GMC follows in the Government's agenda to discredit any one that is a unconventional.

I would appreciate any assistance regarding this problem. I am happy for you to forward this on. I used to be a good friend of Tim Field and indeed assisted him in his last libel case. I must say, we are in admiration of your stance against Gordon Brown. Please continue the good work so far.

With Best Wishes

Dr Rita Pal
For Doctors4Justice.net

Conflict of Interest. NHS Whistleblower Ward 87. North Staffordshire NHS Trust

Mr Gordon Brown, PM, Anger Management

Today I read about our PM allegedly having temper outbursts, sometimes with swearing, thumping of upholstery and throwing of small items at the staff/advisers at 10 Downing Street.

London dinner parties must be lively tonight with numerous jokes about what one can do with a mobile phone, newspapers, pencils and tins of Coke when faced with infuriating subordinates. As I am busy blogging I have to entertain myself by making up some things:

Q What you do with an empty can of Coke?

PM: Throw it until you get a call from National Bullying Helpline. After that recycle.

Q: What do you do with a pencil?

PM: I use it to sharpen the minds of my advisers. After that I use pencil sharpener. (See PM's artistic potential in the right upper corner. Is there an Occupational Therapist who could resist giving him urgent assessment?)

Q: What do you do with newspapers?

PM: Read, then throw at my advisers. After that recycle both.

Q: What do you do with your mobile?

PM: Make it more mobile. I let it fly at my advisers. After that recycle both. Ask Sarah if Naomi Campbell has a spare one.

I am a compassionate Consultant Psychiatrist having suffered false allegations of madness for more than ten years thanks to the incompetence of my colleagues and the General Medical Council (GMC) in London.

Our dear PM would be delighted to know that GMC investigator, one Bill Sukhbir accepted a complaint from a Labour Party member and GMC FTP panelist, Dr Peter Jefferys , that I discharged a mentally ill person to a hotel. Must have been NHS Hotel Grand, as the patient was on Section 3 (compulsory admission to hospital) at Northwick Park Hospital, NHS. Wonderful achievement both for Labour Party and myself. Our NHS hospitals are now better than ever.

One thing that may help Prime Minister is the knowledge that GMC can produce a list of Hired Guns, psychiatrists one can depend on to write anything for a payment. Presumably, these are exactly the sort of people PM should avoid. I have the list and it is free of charge.

I am not worried about PM's mental health. Firstly, he is not female. Although, allegedly temper problems started in 2007, the same year GMC had assessed twice as many female doctors by psychiatrists compared to male doctors. Gordon is definitely a man. No, Ms Harriette Herman, Equality Minister, he is not equal to others. The man has got an advantage, and I can prove it. And you do not need my address, you know who I am.

Anger management is very easy. The only thing that is required is to change one's expectations. One has to stop projecting one's intelligence onto others.

Having lived in communism I do know about passive aggressive behaviour from those who have no incentives to do better. One finds those kind of personalities in state institutions.As the previous administration is known as the religious one and according to Bible expression of anger is a sin, I wonder if Mr Brown, a son of a religious person has finally liberated himself from some bad habits of keeping it all in.

Peter Lynn. The GMC Clerk

Peter Lynn has been featured on many websites. The main pieces can read on NHS Exposed blog . This refers to the life and times of one of the oldest GMC Henchmen. He is listed here as Team Manager of Fitness to Practise. This is because he is head honcho to a team of incompetent GMC clerks. These clerks normally have less qualifications than the doctors they judge. Nevertheless, their delusions of grandeur and their position at the GMC makes them feel " important". Mr Lynn was once asked whether he was a freemason. He automatically assumed the person asking the question had a problem. Of course, he never actually responded to the question.

He was also the contact point in the Health Section of the GMC. During his reign many doctors went down. Recently, we discovered that Peter Lynn was involved in the case of Dr Helen Bright. This is again further evidence of totalitarian behaviour. Lynn is a collector of those who are a threat to the establishment. Lynn is infamous for printing out websites, collecting documents written by the doctor and questioning their mental health on the grounds that their views do not agree with his. This practice has continued at the General Medical Council for many years. In the past, GMC Committee members have reported how doctors who were a threat to the establishment were thrown into the "Health Gulag". The gulag is interesting because the more you say " I am not mad", the more the GMC follows up by " The doctor has no insight". Lynn was the main player in many many cases, one of the most notable being to send a Pakistani doctor for two mental health assessments on the grounds that he criticised the current junior doctor training. The Pakistani doctor came out of the dual psychiatric assessment with a label of " being normal" but as a sub header, one psychiatrist referred to him as a "misfit". Of course, we are all misfits. Anyone who disagrees with the status quo is a misfit according to the General Medical Council.

Lynn has never been fired. He is getting so old that he is now part of the antique furniture there. Ward 87 referred to him as a sinister character who skulks and creeps around the place. He famously discussed reading "Stephen King" as evidence of "mental illness". This is the same application of logic made on numerous doctors.

The other diagnosis Lynn is fond of is querulous paranoia. Lynn fails to understand the concept because lets face it, Lynn hasn't got the level of intellect to understand difficult medical concepts. Lynn allegedly strategically prevents complaints made by doctors so he can cite that their complaints went "nowhere". That in the GMC's mind suggests some kind of "querulous nature". It is of course a clever concept developed by the malevolent General Medical Council.

Despite numerous complaints against Mr Lynn and a Deputy High Court judge describing his conduct as similar to a "totalitarian regime" [R Pal v GMC 2004], Lynn continues to flourish and be promoted. He has access to all the benefits of a GMC Clerk. Free GMC pens, Free GMC Health Insurance etc, Free Access to the Gym. We are sure that hard working doctors will only be too pleased to be funding this GMC Clerk. One day, any doctor in the United Kingdom may come across Peter Lynn during revalidation, if that is so, don't say we didn't warn you.