Thursday, 22 September 2016

European Commissioner exposed in Bahamas leak of offshore company directorship

Oh, well. It would not be news for many who knew of corruption at the EU Commission:

Here is EC policy on corruption:

The failure to declare directorship of the company mirrors UK regulator's failure to hold doctors responsible when they fail to declare relevant directorships or committee memberships. No, there is no competition anywhere on incompetence and wilful blindness.

International Consortium of Investigative Journalism has performed a major operation in publishing names of almost two hundred thousand Bahamas based companies with directorships from politicians all over the world in some of those companies. While Consortium claims the company membership is legal and in some cases justified needless to say, questions will be asked by many.

To search data base by the name of person click on the link below:

Tuesday, 13 September 2016

Burkini is offensive to men

Image result for burkini free photoThere has been a wave of provocations all over the world by, so called, religious clothes. Muslim women burkini wearers in the photo above in south of France are one of the examples.

Politicians have expressed their outrage in some parts of the world while in others exactly the opposite happened. For example, in United Kingdom police were expected to protect and defend the indefensible - not the first, or the last time for poor British police. Police were sent to guard burkini wearers sampling cold North Irish sea:

A PSNI officer accompanies Syrian refugee Bayan Khelo (left) and Lilian Seenoi ofThe North West Migrants Forum
 while French police had the opposite task to remove them from the beach:
Tensions have risen in the area since the Bastille Day attack in July
What is burkini?

Burkini is an outfit for women to wear at the beach, or for swimming. It is ugly, uncomfortable and anything but modest as proclaimed by some as the reason for its creation.

Burkini is about some kind of moral superiority of modesty. Except, that it is unacceptable as such. If you are modest you do not go to the world to boast about it. Also as you can see from the photographs the burkini does show the body shape. It draws attention.

While feminist politicians are right that  burkini is expression of women's oppression there is also another element, offensive message to men:  beasts who cannot control themselves. The facts are that billions of men do control themselves.

Physical attacks are now occurring in Europe by Muslim gangs on men, women and children. Gang of women attacked a French woman sunbathing in her bikini in a French park. Adults and children were attacked in a nudist swimming pool by a gang of men in Germany. Many German women were sexually harassed by groups of men.

Fashion changed over time for men and women. Sometimes severe punishments were used on men for wearing the different cut of suit or even colour of civilian dress. Women were attacked too for ridiculous exposure of arm, ankle etc. Oppression of non Muslim origin is old, sometimes no longer existing. However, there are Christian sects which also have strict rules for their people: Amish, for example.

Violence can arise out of denied feelings of inferiority. Many people would look down on migrants, or with suspicion as if to say: they came here for the better life, we are superior. The actual circumstances of immigrants vary and while there may be those who came for improved material standard of living there is a denial of cultural values society aspires to such as equality of opportunity for both sexes and freedom of expression which is non abusive in nature.

There are some immigrants who are reluctant immigrants. They never wanted to live in a foreign country. Their dependency on new country can be hostile and destructive.

Among the reluctant immigrants there are those who adapt very well and make great contribution to culture without any wish to be enslaved (or to enslave others) by religious dogma or religious dress. 

Wednesday, 1 June 2016

European Court of Justice and religious wear

Finally, after so many deaths in so many countries, a Belgian Court has referred to European Court of Justice for the court's opinion on religious wear at place of work and legal interpretation was given by Advocate General Kokott of the European Court of Justice to Belgian court in a case involving a Muslim's religious wear but it applies across all religions.

religious clothing: View of female muslim in the office Stock Photo

Please, read report in Daily Mail:

And in full, the opinion of the Advocate General Kokott with references to other legal cases:

For many years some UK lawyers have pretended there was nothing for them to do when in fact there was. When asked by potential client if they could act in the case of religious uniforms some refused to answer the calls or even acknowledge them. Others just took the money to advise no legal action is the best way.

It is British lawyers who refused to ask the British courts to refer to European Court of Justice for the opinion i.e. interpretation of the law. The Treaty on The Functioning of the European Union provides for this. Court can refuse to do it and that is where there is a difficulty for some applicants.

Despite the increased number of deaths associated with the wearing of religious uniforms Department of Health refused to form national policy on work wear exposing patients to deaths and doctors to serious harm: reputational damage, financial as well as social disasters followed.

Of course, European Court of Justice is right: employees may expect that expression of religion needs to be moderated at the place of work and without discrimination.

General Medical Council in UK refused to act in the interests of patients in the matter of religious uniforms. The disciplinary procedures concentrated on the offence taken by the religious not on the public duty to putting patients first. Doctors who raised the issue were hounded to present day with the aim of excluding them from the workforce altogether.

Department of Health has right arm NCAS who even went as far as inventing complaints against doctors who made no clinical errors. They urged innocent doctors to be referred to General Medical Council's disciplinary procedures as a way of protecting fearful politicians and administrators.

GMC even published false information before the disciplinary hearing claiming a doctor did not act in the interest of patients when in fact they already found themselves that there were no clinical errors made by that doctor. Misinformation went unpunished as far as Doctors4Justice is aware.

General Medical Council at one point had a guidance on religious beliefs issued to doctors where Islamic veil was prohibited following campaigning by Conservative MP, but approved of  nun's habit in a systematic religiously biased trial when they repeatedly appointed religious extremists to the disciplinary panels, or plain religious workers in case where religious dress was an issue, The rules of natural justice were also broken by allowing the governing body member to sit on disciplinary panel.

When this discrimination was pointed to GMC by Doctors4Justice, GMC then decided not to prohibit anything in religious wear no matter how many patients died as a result of not being able to trust health and social care workers who wore religious uniforms regardless of unwritten rules in NHS practises. Just like Belgian company G4S whose employee sued them. They, too, initially had unwritten code of dress. Neutrality is important to global company as it would be in health sector in UK.

General Medical Council reappointed a panellist, a Medical Director in a psychiatric hospital, who was directly linked to persecution of an innocent doctor who objected to religious uniforms despite extensive evidence of wrongdoing by the religious worker and his own wrongdoing. Three times reappointed by GMC to judge other poor doctors!!! He also inspected Broadmoor Hospital as a Mental Health Act Commissioner when Jimmy Saville from BBC was abusing children and adults and was given the keys to the hospital wards as a hospital director. He did nothing about this, i.e. an unqualified person being given access to the vulnerable patients, of course. BBC did report on him on that issue in recent times. Again GMC did nothing to investigate as far as Doctors4Justice knows.

Instead, GMC issued a general statement that GMC is different from how it used to be in that some things could never happen again in disciplinary proceedings when it comes to the protection of paedophile doctors at the expense of patients. No comment was made by General Medical Council how they protect paedophile clergy of various religions by colluding in making it harder for patients to trust the service providers who indulge in religious bias and who ignore the human rights as granted by European Union.

Some British lawyers may indulge in calling UK a Christian country but British people think differently and most are not religious. The national identity is, in reality, different from what institutionalised men may perceive and wish for. And, of course, most religious people themselves prefer justice for all which is best provided by neutrality and equality in that.

Watch the film Spotlight on how institutions colluded in USA to cover up abuse by clergy. Available in supermarkets in UK and on Amazon (very fast delivery).

religious clothing: Young nun in religious concept

Friday, 22 April 2016

Judge Hall a breath of fresh air in the corridors of justice, a number of newspapers and Internet websites reported on the case judged by Judge Jonathan Durham Hall in Bradford where a victim of abuse let down by the legal system was treated fairly after she almost killed her abuser. Click on the photograph to read an article in Telegraph.
It is touching to see the justice done in UK. The judge even offered to pay her court fee if the victims was forced to do it.
UK government at present is showing some compassion as PM expected. We hope Judge Hall is treated fairly too in the future because outstanding characters get attacked by social pests even professional ones.
There are victims who do not live any longer and some of them were judges. One was Esther Lynn Cunningham, a victim of one of her teachers. She drunk to forget. Her behaviour in court and at General Medical Council was not understood by her colleagues who punished her instead of helping her.

Thursday, 21 April 2016

Dr Morris Fraser paedophile dedication to John Holmstrom BBCR3 paedophile in his book Death of Narcissus

Photo from Marlowe Society Cambridge Shakespeare's Twelwth Night where John Holmstrom was Sir Aguecheek, a fool with a garish sense of dress

Dr Morris Fraser, a founding member of Paedophile Information Exchange dedicated his book to John Holmstrom, an ex BBCR3 broadcaster. Amazon delivered Death of Narcissus with Dr Morris dedication to John Holmstrom "With best wishes Morris". Read on the link below on the journalists findings on John Holmstrom, yet another BBC paedophile, a member of Paedophile Information Exchange.

John Holmstrom wrote a book The Moving Picture Boy Encyclopaedia where the book is described:

John Holmstrom, the literary editor of the Royal Shakespeare Company and a governor of the British Film Institute, spent decades travelling the world to research and write the universally acclaimed book The Moving Picture Boy Encyclopaedia. In doing so he assembled a photographic archive that is, of its kind, without equal in Great Britain. Film historian Paul Sutton showcases hundreds of photographs and posters from the collection, around which he writes a history of this rare part of cinema. Many of the photographs have never before been published. In addition to the stills and posters, the book includes a delightful 67-page scrapbook of Holmstrom's newspaper and magazine cuttings from around the world; and a selection of letters to Holmstrom from former boy actors in Britain, Italy, France, Germany, America, India and Hungary.

John Holmstrom had a number of fashion shops for boys, including Colts in Hampstead, London

A British merchant reports, "In 1965 I started in Hampstead, London, a shop called "Colts," which offered a selection of "the world's best casual clothing" for boys of school age. Colts catered solely for boys' leisure wear, largely imported from France, Holland, Belgium, Germany and the United States. The introduction to our catalog declared: `We're noted for the brilliance and sophistication of our sports shirts, the sumptuous variety of our corduroys, the tough-ness of our jeans, and the shortness of our shorts. The Continent shows us that school-boys don't have to be Just Williams or bedraggled grey mice; they can be quite shapely animals if their clothes give them half a chance'." The catalog shows a range of stylish clothes that were becoming popular in England, including cord jackets, bright polo-shirts, jeans, and suits with mod and traditional styling. There was even an American-style baseball cap--at the time quite novel in England. Colts operated in England between 1965 and 1975, with branches in Hampstead (London), Richmond (Surrey), Guildford, Chester, Bath, Reading, and Brighton. Colts did not do general outfitting and no school or formal clothes, they indicated, however, that "... most of our casuals are elegant enough to hold their own in any company."

In psychoanalysis horse has been interpreted as representing sexuality and one wonders if any of the local analysts worked it out. Did any abuse occurred in these shops?

Monday, 7 March 2016

Dr Vladislav Rogozov and incompetent Department of Health

Dr Vladislav Rogozov is suspended for confronting surgeon for wearing a hijab
Daily Mail photograph and read the article by clicking on the photo.

In the summer of 1999 Dr Helen Bright raised the issue of religious uniforms in mental health setting but Department of Health DoH) not only failed to act on her whistleblowing but continued with willful blindness to present day.

DoH has been informed that at least eight more died in Harrow (since their decision to do nothing about prevention) where a uniformed Christian nun was employed as a Community Mental Health Team Leader for four years. Eight more people committed suicide than on average for the area. Research findings resulted in no creation of National policy for workwear in mental health nor adequate revision of the National policy for workwear as applicable to surgical and some medical wards. To present day England has problems with poorly thinking individuals being permitted to rule from DoH. Killing people is acceptable in NHS as it reduces the demand on services, perhaps. Out of sight, out of mind too.

Like a greedy person England wants to have it all. But that is not possible. Accepting religious privileges costs lives. It decreases quality of life for many and over a very long time.

From the psychodynamic point of view, the inadequate persons can become hostile (and greedy) in order to defend themselves from feelings of inferiority. Inadequate administrators attacks can be very successful in causing misery for many and even deaths. Doctors and their patients are sacrificed as are tons of public money raised through taxes which are squandered by the incompetents protecting their ego. For example: " You cannot come to this country and tell me what to do" is not said but it is practised against ethnic minority doctors, (clearly, both Dr Bright and Dr Rogozov are from ethnic minority and therefore, have no freedom of speech). Like Roman slaves surgeons/physicians are expected to be smart, but slaves whose lives are to be disposed off when ego demands. Intelligent people are expected to perform super magic, through silent magic communications, not heard by administrators.                                      

Although, Dr Rogozov worked hard he may have missed it that where he works people are into ghosts and power. Mr Matt Barry, yes, another foreigner had this to say about GHOSTS.

Another behavioural pattern in inadequates is avoidance to deal with relevant issues. Department of Health refused to revise their policy of workwear and the way they produced is biased.

Department of Health suggested false allegations against doctors. In Dr Bright's case they wrote "mental illness" on her pleading letter to them and sent the copy to the incompetent NHS trust management at Northwick Park Hospital so they know how to build up the false allegations against her at GMC (General Medical Council).

Dr Bright had no mental illness but DoH with their friends at GMC relentlessly, to the bitter end, pursued this avenue of psychiatric examinations which revealed no mental illness. When there was no mental illness and independent Assessors at GMC panel protested at the way the GMC disciplinary panel was conducting themselves, then invention was made of disruptive behaviour problem that would need psychiatric monitoring through educational supervision by Consultant Psychiatrist. Dr Bright already had years of experience of being Education Supervisor herself since she was appointed as NHS Consultant. One of the wicked GMC panellists, Dr Gwen Adshead, a lay preacher (did not declare this interest to GMC as required) is now publishing a book on evil. She described her patients at Broadmoor Hospital as unloved and evil. One of her interests was building a private business charging doctors for disruptive behaviour correction by her and her team. Another interest was doing business with NCAS (National Clinical Assessment Service), the right arm organization of Department of Health who invent allegations against doctors and do not assess them when political execution through GMC is faster and effortless. She also sat at The Royal College of Psychiatrists Public Policy Committee when they were asked to discuss the wearing of religious uniforms. The Public Policy Committee was meant to advise the government in their policy making but they refused because to them patients are nothing. The Chief Executive Vanessa Cameron refused to investigate the religious loading of the ethics committee and to comply with Data Protection Act 1998. Of course, if one can support the policy that leads to loss of life, why should not one fail to comply with law too?

So, now we have Dr Vladislav Rogozov, a surgeon in England, from the excellent surgical family. He, like Dr Bright is right in objections to the wearing of religious gear, but the guns are pointed at him. Dr Vladislav Rogozov used workwear policy on hygiene but that is not enough. Now he is suspended by National Health Service Trust. Greed in persecution. Too difficult to look at the intelligent man for some.

Surgeons not only operate but actually, take history from their patients. It is already very hard for them when patients are in pain, want quick resolution, are perhaps, rather irritable too. How does one form good rapport and trust with patients by wearing of religious uniforms which complicate the matters seriously. Read HERE how it sabotages the best efforts. If religious beliefs are private matter why push it in somebody's mind, and in this case the mind of the ill persons? Of course, provocation is the name of the game along with gaining power over others. And those who do not respect the boundaries of private and public victimize others. Sometimes, themselves too. But what good is it?

Wednesday, 10 February 2016

General Medical Council hearing paedophile Dr Morris Fraser included MP (later Attorney General for England and Wales) and President of GMC

The General Medical Council (GMC) is a regulator of medical profession and a registered charity. They decide if doctor can have licence to practise in UK. GMC can also prevent doctor from working abroad by refusing to issue Certificate of good standing. The latter prevents doctor from registering abroad quite effectively in countries that still believe in UK justice system.

It is known that GMC has protected paedophile doctors such as Dr Morris Fraser by not taking them off the medical register despite court convictions of paedophilia.

In contrast, GMC persecuted and erased from the medical register doctors like Dr Helen Bright whose work was to protect victims of child abuse, promote freedom of speech for the patients, educate professionals and create the first residential treatment facilities for the survivors of the abuse. She objected to the wearing of the religious uniforms by mental health workers. Uniforms act as a barrier to trust and development of rapport. Doctors' white coats and nursing uniforms are not worn in mental health workplace in most parts of UK. There is use of nursing uniforms amongst female nurses in Northern Ireland. Some doctors in Northern Ireland said they are 40 years behind UK where uniforms in mental health were discarded about 30-40 years ago.

GMC employed Professor Dora Kohen who did her bit for the regime that employed her by publishing that uniforms are great in mental health. She was GMC's Health Screener. It is of interest that hundreds of doctors died during GMC's investigations over the years. Many committed suicides. Professor Kohen also worked for the Parole Board. According to research many men in prisons suffered sexual abuse. Here is research from another country showing 70% of prisoners have history of being sexually abused in childhood. There are many defects in healthcare of vulnerable men in prison and outside. Professor Dora Kohen published her substandard work in the Journal of The Royal College of Psychiatrists when ex-president of the College was editor. He was once also on Public Policy Committee of the College who refused to discuss the wearing of religious uniforms when they were asked. The response was that it was not in their remit. Anything is in their remit if it is relevant to the improvement of mental health. They have constitution written tot hat effect. Neither doctors nor their Chief Executive bother about constitutional matters. Why should they be bothered when there is plenty of paid work for them? Concern for patients' feelings is "unprofessional" except when it is convenient to "hang" some foreign doctor via GMC. Then language and freedom of expression become important.

Interestingly, at Dr Morris Fraser hearing in 1974 a newly elected MP sat as a Legal Assessor, Patrick Barnabas Mayhew. He later became Attorney General for England and Wales and later Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He is related to late Princess Diana. Legal Assessors are not decision makers at GMC hearings. They advise on legal points relevant to the case. GMC did not publish his advise (nor that of other legal assessors in his hearings) in the record of the hearing as can be seen from the disclosures under Freedom of Information Act 2000 above.

It is known that Princess Diana opened Child Line and banned paedophile Bishop Ball from Highgrove, royal residence where he was a visitor.

According to public records both the Queen and Prince Charles supported Bishop Ball presumably, in the belief that he was innocent but also it is in the interest of power of their sort to go along with religious leaders to gain the power over gullible. Much has been written on the governing of the state and religion and how it does not work in the interest of people.

There is an interview with ex government Chief Whip Tim Fortescue  (1970-1973) Conservative, who stated to BBC that when MPs were involved in scandalous conduct such as that involving trouble with young boys the governing  party helped them because it gave them power over them: they would do whatever they were asked to do from there on. At GMC, similarly, guilty doctors are employed as members of Fitness to Practice Panels because they tow the line GMC gives them. It is a simple prescription known for many years by power players.

Certainly, in Dr Morris Fraser's case, Dr Fraser made promises to GMC of being good but to the contrary carried on abusing children. He abused children when he was a Consultant Child Psychiatrist. GMC accepted that he can continue working in other subspecialty of psychiatry such as that of Old Age Psychiatry as if there were no children in this world outside child psychiatry service.

Dr Morris Fraser was a member of Paedophile Information Exchange to which lawyers including future government ministers gave support, including future health government minister in Labour Party. Paedophile Information Exchange was funded by Home Office.

Department of Health ministers of different political parties repeatedly refused to facilitate freedom of speech for survivors of sexual abuse to current day by refusing to ban religious uniforms in mental health. The current government has poured money into mental health giving special funds for therapy services to those who suffered abuse. But Department of Health always sticks to their practise of providing the national policy of workwear for medical and surgical wards while mentally ill are willfully neglected. They are perfectly aware of the excess morbidity and mortality it causes.

GMC themselves have been aware for more than 15 years of the nastiness of their policy of supporting religious wear in mental health but they are rich and always ready to pull out of the hat another independent inquiry. This GMC did by having a report into doctors and religious belief. They completely ignored excellent submissions by Secular Medical Forum and National Secular Society. Yes, completely. Who pays the piper calls the tune. And walking over the dead bodies is not that hard after a while. Mentally ill who committed suicides in excess numbers are not important to GMC.

There is much wrong with Dr Morris Fraser hearings. In the first hearing there is no psychiatric expertise on the disciplinary panel panel.

There should be separation of executive from the panels but there is not as President sits on the panel. An MP also sits as a Legal Advisor.

The psychiatric brotherhood that appeared in later hearings defends Dr Morris Fraser giving him many chances to stay on the medical register.

One presumes that Dr Morris Fraser was a member of the old boy network of paedophiles that protected their members and GMC became part of their protective mechanisms. One of the implications of paedophile protection was that it became the tradition of corruption that carries to present day in various forms. For example, GMC refuse to correct their mistakes and rehabilitate those doctors they wronged. GMC was asked to do so by doctors repeatedly. Not only do they refuse to correct the mistakes but also threaten innocent doctors who asked for it and who have unblemished record before GMC.

In general, in UK, protection of paedophiles killed many people subsequently: men who committed suicides because nobody would help them, people died because good doctors were prevented from working by GMC who erased them from medical register.

There were financial problems for many unrelated people including banks who could not get their money because doctors could not work and pay their mortgages etc.

Families and friends despaired because their efforts to help good doctors led nowhere while GMC protected the bad ones.

Saturday, 14 November 2015

Russians lay a mountain of flowers for the French in sympathy over attacks

Russians have laid a mountain of flowers in sympathy for the French Click here to see

In other countries like Serbia, President suggested that citizens could express both sympathy and gratitude. In Belgrade where there is a monument called: Gratitude to France. President spoke how citizens could light candles there and Mayor of Belgrade did.

English seem to be far less emotionally expressive. Years of suppression are evident in stiffness of more than one area, traditionally the lip and the wallet. BBC showed photographs from some embassies around the world. But also a reporter moved by French people's hope for the future.

It is also true that British people have been victimized when they tried to speak up with no rehabilitation ever of, for example, whistle blowers. Understanding just how nasty the system is to British people is possible: from very early on children are made to attend religious schools by their ignorant parents. Tolerance for social injustice is installed in British way of life from very early on. Most do not dare speak up.

Even politicians in British Parliament have to suffer religious indoctrination on a daily basis in the form of prayers. There is no evidence that they read the Bible in full ever although it was sent to each of them. Selective reading, lack of critical thinking, do diminish the ability to create and defend human rights such as liberty. British accepted sharia courts. That is not madness but gross irresponsibility of the masses that failed to stand up to their politicians. Even political parties choose leaders at times that people look at with disdain and justifiably so.

 It is like it really does not matter that UK encouraged religious extremism which does lead to wars, wars to plundering and plundering to poverty which in turn makes people more likely to be religious. Most British people are not religious, but where is their voice?

Thursday, 29 October 2015

Ghosts at The Royal College of Psychiatrists!!!

hqdefault.jpg (480×360)For some time now British psychiatrists have got themselves involved deeply with spiritual matters. It may shock the readers from the more enlightened societies in this world that this institution has Special Interest Group in Spirituality (the idea of Prince Charles). Soon due to have their next meeting, not too far removed from Halloween, but enough. They will be considering their failings. Surely, with all the assistance of all the gods in this universe, and the parallel ones, failure is impossible. Yes, many people died because of the actions of at least one of them, but in the ghost world they have merely relocated without the forwarding address other than vague "sea" if we follow the logic of Matt Berry, BBC's star.
When you watch the film below you will realise that UK is ideally located for ghosts as these reside in the sea and GB is an island and while not as great as China, it is an island.
Click HERE to watch ghosts in action. It is not scary at all.
Matt Berry, you are clever not to be a doctor as with the richness of your language alone you would meet more than one ghost handler at the medical regulator, The General Medical Council, the collector of really scary ghosts stories. 

Monday, 19 October 2015

Post Ball Prince Charles not going to a ball

2D2BC05B00000578-0-image-a-20_1444345022904.jpg (634×509)Prince Charles, Patron of The Royal College of Psychiatrists, in England, Europe, is not going to attend a state banquet for Chinese President Xi Jinping following reporting from the media, including Daily Mail (click on their photo to read more) that he supported a paedophile bishop Ball by providing him with housing. The Bishop Ball is now in jail. At least one of his victims committed suicide.

In UK, four times as many men as women commit suicide. Some of those are victims of sexual abuse. The majority - over 80% of victims of abuse by clergy are men. Contributing to the suffering of men is unlawful, discriminatory approach to the treatment of survivors by British psychiatrists who have protected paedophiles for a while now by failing to provide correct conditions for diagnosis and treatment of these men.

Despite repeated requests to The Royal College of Psychiatrists to provide advise against the wearing of religious uniforms when working with mentally ill, they have refused. Yes, they have acknowledged that uniforms are not worn by psychiatrists such as white coats, but when it comes to religious uniforms they have no balls to tell the truth as it is: uniforms are a barrier to communications between patients and mental health care workers. They repeatedly and wilfully ignore their constitution which allows them to take action that is in the interests of the mentally ill. One of the functions they have is to advise the government, but they are mute on the point of religious uniforms because they have allowed moral corruption in. Their Chief Executive refused to disclose the names of the people who sat at their Public Policy Committee. Yes, that is against the law. But minority have the ways of rewarding such people - she got some honour somewhere.

To make the matters worse The Royal College of Psychiatrists allowed the establishment of Special Interest Spirituality Group which has worked against the interests of the patients. One of the members called her patients evil. This is like going back to the times when it was thought that demons possessed mentally ill. According to that logic current British Prime Minister is something supernatural nasty as he was the father of a boy who had epileptic seizures and died from it. Similarly, there was history of epilepsy and other mental disorders in the members of the royal family. Does Prince Charles really think that his family is supernatural?

Special Interest Group in Spirituality also had hit squad members causing havoc at GMC by removal from the medical register of a psychiatric specialist who pointed that religious uniforms should not be worn when working with mentally ill. They declared this serious professional misconduct and imposed no less than 16 conditions on her practise which could never be met. This is known as constructive erasure. In USA, Dr Bright's paper was published and you can read it. The nasty web of deceit spun through British medical institutions killed people and ruined lives of families and friends.

Prince Charles not only founded this spirituality group at The Royal College of Psychiatrists in 1999 but also pressed for it since early 1990's at least (time when bishop Ball had police showing interest in him for his criminal behaviour towards children). When Prince Charles was asked to intervene at The Royal College of Psychiatrists regarding the wearing of religious uniforms, his office stated it was just a matter of opinion and obviously, refused to do anything. They did not want more allegations against clergy to emerge. Patients should not talk! Yes, so much about human rights in UK. Just in one area where uniformed nun worked eight more people killed themselves. This is above their usual number of suicides per year.

Even today there are serious consequences of the ex-secretary of the Christian Medical Fellowship striking at Dr Helen Bright who performed the first study in the world on the wearing of religious uniforms in mental health. Read it here.

GMC (General Medical Council - regulator of medical profession in UK) protected paedophiles too. With committed regularity their head of panel formation put furious religious workers to judge Dr Helen Bright: exorcist at one hearing, preacher from Broadmore Hospital at another, other religious workers at other hearings, mental torture going on for years. GMC press office refused to answer if the head of the disciplinary panel formation worked for Opus Dei as it was alleged. However, soon after the question was asked she was gone from her job.

Of course, we do know that distressed people are more likely to be xenophobic and religious. Targeted administration of magnetic energy can reduce religiosity as well as racial hostility. And researchers at the University of York achieved that. 

So, at the next meeting with Chinese President Jinping should UK ask for more magnets to be manufactured to treat fearfulness and despondency in UK?

Doctors4Justice is aware of the symbiotic relationship between clergy and royalty. We do know that missionary goes in first, creates social injustice and soldier follows. Then, there is plunder. D4J is perfectly aware of the vast natural resources in Tibet as would be those who lost their religious foothold there. Prince Charles has been supporting a certain clergy member from Tibet....

Anyway here is some nice relaxing noise of rain drops which do not have to fall into a golden Tibetan bowl.

For those of you interested in the relationship between depression and greed read Melanie Klein, a psychoanalyst who wrote a book with a title "Envy and Gratitude". She suffered from major depression and pioneered child psychoanalysis.

Prince Charles' suffering at his boarding school which amounted to torture has been described here. One of the consequences of denial of one's true feelings is the need for something else to take the pain away such as various addictions. Religion has been described as opium of the people. But like other addictions it does not work long-term. At the end of the day one still has to do the necessary mental work.

Friday, 14 August 2015

Success: Minister for Faith government post abolished

large.jpg (350×219)Doctors4Justice has been successful in campaigning against the post of Minister for Faith. It has been abolished. Our campaign has been in keeping with equality principles for all (religious or not religious) and the essence of secular agenda.

Most British institutions already have a hefty dose of religious bias with many religious privileges.
It is not too difficult to explain why medicine is so loaded with those. Despair holds hands with superstition. Similarly, with poverty. In fact, many have argued that some religions lead to widespread poverty through the values such as prohibition of birth control, inequality between sexes, races and those of different social class. Recent research shows that those who are highly religious have higher levels of stress biomarkers.

For some people religion is linked to their identity and self perceived discrimination is sometimes misinterpreted as discrimination against religion.

When recently, in Broadmoor Hospital in UK, a couple of mentally ill patients who recently converted to Islam attacked staff because they were not allowed to pray in patients' common areas, one could not find in the mainstream media any mention of religious bias in medical institutions.

Broadmoor Hospital has employed one Dr Gwen Adshead Consultant Psychiatrist who got herself elected to the General Medical Council (GMC) to judge other doctors in disciplinary proceedings against them while GMC had outstanding complaints against her. Nice one. Once in, the complaints against Dr Adshead did not lead anywhere. Dr Adshead failed to declare her interests as required by the GMC's own rules. Not only is she a lay preacher but her sister is a Catholic nun. All of this was highly relevant in the case of Dr Helen Bright who was shredded to bits by the religious fury. Dr Bright objected to the wearing of the religious uniforms by mental health staff when working with mentally ill. After GMC stupidly got rid of Dr Helen Bright patients died in larger numbers than before.

Despite the fact that there was an increase in suicides in the area where uniformed nun worked for four years (eight more suicides) Department of Health officially started to pretend that every National Health Service Trust is responsible for their own workwear policy as a matter of law. Dr Helen Bright was advised to write to each one of them (there are over 50 NHS mental health trusts) because they are all independent in how they construct their policies according to Department of Health. Well, where was that independence when Department of Health wrote national policy for workwear on surgical and medical wards in NHS trusts? So, the lives of those who have appendicitis matter and the lives of those who have mental illness do not.

As most people would know not all UK areas are the same in terms of ethnicity and religiosity. Does this affects votes? And suicides?

There is evidence that suicides are highest among black men. "Suicide rates and classical indicators of suicide risk among inpatients committing suicide vary by ethnic group. Black African men have the highest rates of suicide compared to the White British group".Again, it would not be important to medical regulator or NHS that there is discrimination. There is no problem whatsoever in GMC commissioning yet another report to show that they really are not racist: who pays the piper calls the tune.

In terms of voting behaviour: "
  1. 9. Ethnicity• The ethnic vote in the UK has tended to heavily favour the Labour Party (average 80% of black & Asian vote since 1974).• This part of electorate becomes more important to parties as the immigrant population increases• Linked to social class – many immigrants live in working class urban environments• Labour Party has generally been more pro-immigration & welfare• 2005 – decrease in vote for Labour, especially amongst Muslims because of Iraq war – impact inner city areas e.g. Bethnel Green & Bow elected Respect Party

It was during Labour government that refusal to form national workwear policy in mental health started and continued to present day in UK through all the changes of various governments.

Tuesday, 3 February 2015

Resilience training for doctors

Many doctors have died while investigated by the General Medical Council. Their names are kept secret. Doctors4Justice went to court in an attempt to get the disclosure. The chair of the tribunal hearing was one of BMA lawyers. Tribunal decided that names should not be disclosed. There has been no independent investigation into hundreds of deaths.

However, GMC had their own little exercise and produced a report following the court decision in their favour and the refusal of the permission to appeal made promptly by D4J. The refusal decision was made by the same judge.

Recently, it has been suggested that doctors should receive resilience training. This allegedly is based on army training. The President of The Royal College of Psychiatrists is somebody who had something to do with working for the British army and is married to somebody who is GMC's expert witness in cases against doctors and also run state sponsored clinic for stressed doctors. It has been declared that most doctors who killed themselves while investigated by GMC were mentally ill. Just simply mad, you see, nothing to worry about.

So, what is the evidence for resilience training from scientific point of view?

1. Prolonged stress is known to cause immune system problems. So, one would expect increased mortality in investigated doctors from many causes not just suicides. The fact is that most did not die from suicides so why stress that so much? Ah?

2. Dr Miles Herkenham's team in National Institute of Health in Bethesda, Maryland investigated the immune system response to stress. They noticed that most of the research has been on so called innate branch of immune system (the cells that mount the first response to pathogens). They wondered if there was such a thing as learning as in adaptive branch of the immune system that could learn in order to respond fast the next time the pathogen appears.

They did their research on mice. The introduction of an aggressive competitor mouse into the cage of male mice caused a bit of stress, bullied mice cowered, seem depressed, placing themselves in the dark corners and showing no interest in the scent of females.

When scientists injected their adaptive immune cells into another set of mice bred to lack these cells these mice were more likely to explore the open areas and were more interested in females compared to similar mice that didn't receive the injection. (Journal of Neuroscience, DOI: 10.1523/jneurosci.2278-14.2015).

The cells were injected into another strain of mice known for their unresponsiveness and these also were soon running around.

But the scientists were at a loss as to why is it that bullied mice (the donors of the adaptive cells) did not become themselves better with coping with the bullies and why chronically stressed people, sorry, mice often have weak immune system.

It is known that mice who receive a transplant of innate immune cells can show symptoms of anxiety and depression.

3. Why mice are not given the credit for being intelligent and noticing that the bully was not removed or that men in the lab coats may put more in their cages?

4. The medical regulator continues to collude with NHS and other bullies, killing doctors ( and patients) and happily watching as some of the bullies get even promoted to the positions such as, wait for it, providing professional opinions on sudden deaths of patients. And as the old Latin saying goes De gustibus nihil disputandum.

While French are revolting English wait for their turn in a queue, More secret files on doctors

There are many secret files on doctors held by The General Medical Council (GMC). Complaints are made against doctors but not investigated when investigations should take place, for example, and doctors do not know anything about it. Although it is unlawful to store incorrect data the regulator of medical profession, GMC does not worry about such things and it would appear English doctors allow themselves to be treated in this way. Making verbal protests is not enough. A bit of writing here and there is all we have seen from medical profession. No real appetite for change, or justice. As long as one reaches one's retirement appears to be the common attitude of state serving doctors. Oh, dear.

Doctors4Justice has evidence that GMC does not allow openness. When a complainant disclosed her complaint to a doctor complained about, the GMC' s official protested against the disclosure!!! Yes, a hefty complaint file was sent to the retired judge David Pearl who is hanging around GMC, part-time. He just circulated it without reading, presumably, to Fitness to Practice Directorate, notorious for self-protection and secretiveness.

No matter how well documented the complaints are the boys simply gang up together to defend themselves: that is defending GMC's own failures and those false complainants who are established within the NHS system. It is completely irrelevant to GMC how many patients or doctors die as the result of the injustice, or laws being broken by them. They just carry on. A little chat with Parliamentary Health Select Committee once a year is not a big deal in terms of accountability. A little report from Law Commission just supports them.  For GMC it is important to look good on camera and agree with everything that MPs seem to be asking for, or alluding to. GMC follow up Parliamentary concerns by writing a little page or two of a policy (eg on child protection) and claim of  reformation with no evidence to support it. Patients continue dying in numbers that could be prevented if they only had the guts to do their work.

And are British doctors able to challenge their regulator? Well, I think they will just wait for their turn in a queue allowing other people's victimization and promoting their own.

Thursday, 8 January 2015

CHARLIE HEBDO and deaths due to religious extremism - Many lessons to learn but who is willing?

The security services would, by now, have an excellent idea of what makes an extremist. They would have had the help of their intelligence officers, police, psychiatrists, psychologists, forensic sociologists and others but I do not know if they have all the help they need to be able to prevent more murders/deaths.

Intelligence services need assistance of their political masters, sometimes. Political base is missing in many countries because of: the unwillingness to assess the threat properly (no, they are not all holding guns), unwillingness to contain the serious threat (long imprisonments where necessary), various prejudices, interests, wider implications for the political system as a whole and perhaps, the need for the personal development within the political elite as much as the general population where superstition and belief in supernatural is still present in many people (both within organized religions and outside it).

People die due to religious extremism all over the world and all of the time. It is not usually reported in the media when mentally ill patients die when religious extremism is favored by the state such as it happens in UK. Sometimes media report the relevant issues, repeatedly, without any provocation of the readers and responsibly but governments do just nothing for many, many years. For example, in UK there has been an excess of suicides following the wearing of religious uniforms by mental health workers. The Royal College of Psychiatrists in London pretends to this day that they can do nothing about it despite the fact that it advises the government, has constitution that allows it to communicate with anyone in any institution in order to improve the mental health of the patients and indeed, it is the duty that it does so. But the Royal College of Psychiatrists members prefer to drink tea while chatting nicely to the religious extremists they have in their various influential committees. It is known that Ethics Committees can act like honey to the bees for the religious psychiatrists and that leadership of the college has been weak for many years.

Not surprisingly, taking into account that the education of most doctors (and other population members) is defective from early school days when it comes to the issues of responsibility, The General Medical Council, the regulator of medical profession has employed religious fanatics to work in their fitness to practice committees and they have been effective in removing good doctors leading to more patients' deaths. UK has a shortage of doctors. In addition, the regulator having condemned some good doctors does not have the sense of responsibility to admit mistakes and recommend measures that would protect patients and good doctors. When some people in other countries hear just how many people work in NHS already they asked: "Are people in England very sick to need so many to take care of them?" The answers to that are known already.

Many UK doctors killed themselves while investigated by the General Medical Council, and there has been no independent investigation into those deaths. The General Medical Council did commission their own report. Reading the report one gets the impression of the lack of creativity, subservience to the paymaster (GMC), with no evidence of awareness of the social, economic and political factors relevant to the persecution of some doctors and not others. Closed minds all around. One of the recent recommendations is that doctors should be trained to be more resilient. A bit like a slave master telling slaves to work harder, longer and be happy about the circumstances of their life. There is only so much humiliation and hardship that any human being can bear. The brutality of the GMC regime has to be witnessed to be believed. The GMC's fondness of the religion has been evident with their demands for doctors to be struck off medical register because they offended the religious. For their purposes, GMC would carefully select their barristers, for example, one married to the vicar (likely to be very religious too). The same person then gets promoted to be a judge even though they demanded a doctor who never harmed anyone to be removed from the register. The fury of GMC's religious investigators has no boundaries and has been helped by the head of fitness to practise empanellment who selected the panellists so that GMC would get the result they want i.e. remove those who seem uncooperative to them or dissident. Doctors4Justice has been informed that one of their barristers is siting comfortably at her judicial bench in Kent, England having served the religious agenda of the previous Labour government sincerely so.

Doctors desperate for good psychiatric help often cannot get it. What can the rest of the population expect? Some of the psychiatric reports written for the General Medical Council about the investigated doctors are of such a low standard that it brings into question what do GMC lawyers know about expert evidence rules for the courts and why have those reports not been sent back to the writers as not compliant with the law of expert evidence, at least? Just putting more money to solve the problem, really is not enough. As they say, money is not everything.

People who are desperate for psychiatric help cannot get it while there are unemployed psychiatrists in this world. Recently, there has been yet another shooting at USA army medical facility as veterans are desperate to see psychiatrists and cannot get to see them. Some people just cannot wait.

Charlie Hebdo assassins' personality developments are yet to be fully known. However, we all know that it is not necessary to be a Muslim, or even religious to be aggressive or violent. Your best friends or family with whom you normally have good relations can turn against you particularly when they do not want to admit something to themselves about themselves. Taking responsibility for own feelings, actions and beliefs is not present to a sufficient degree in those who victimize others. Their early life (or/and later life events) may have been characterised by emotional deprivation, abuse and a sense of hopelessness and helplessness developed out of it. Out of despair desperate measures follow such as terror of others where personal fears of offenders infect others in the society.

Religion can be used in a manipulative way for the emotional aim of achieving the sense of power and sense of social association with nothing else  other than omnipotence and omniscience of supernatural. Religion can be used to glue people into identity group and group is stronger than an individual at times. Thus, from loneliness and despair of powerlessness victim rises to be a member of what is perceived as a larger and more powerful group i.e. that of the chosen religion.

As denial is the common psychological defence from the intrusive unhappy feelings but is not 100% effective some victims help themselves with abuse of alcohol, drugs, sex, religion, over work and  compulsive behaviours to do with excessive dieting, or exercise in order to feel better. All of us have seen it and so many times but how many have set time aside to think about it?

What is the cure? Installing the sense of hope is the first step. There must be a better psychological/social provision for child care that goes a bit longer into adolescence.

Dealing with own lack of responsibility when it comes to belief is difficult for many people because they have not dealt with taking responsibility for feelings (the easiest step), own actions (a more difficult step) and belief (even more difficult than taking responsibility for own actions).

What is taking responsibility for own feelings? Responsibility is defined as the ability to respond. It varies in human beings for a variety of reasons: some people are limited by physical/ structural or biochemical  abnormalities in the brain itself. Others have faulty learning and some have mixture of both. If one is feeling that the sun is burning on one's skin most of us would take some evasive/protective action. In other situation different type of action is required. If one has bacterial infection one would aim to kill those bacteria. The assassins in the case of Charlie Hebdo killed what they may have perceived as the cause of their unhappiness but which was likely to have many causes unrelated to Charlie Hebdo.

In general terms, taking responsibility for one's actions would mean correcting what can be corrected if the previous action was wrong, compensating those one has harmed and other measures may be appropriate in some cases from the individual such as forgiving oneself in order to prevent further self and social harm.

Taking responsibility for own belief means being honest, and analytical. When one finds that one has been wrong in one's belief it is reasonable to change that belief even if others may disapprove of it. Those who may feel badly about themselves (poor self-esteem) are less likely to question their belief.  It is like admitting that one is even worse than what one felt anyway. The violent clinging to the belief system can result.

Non-vigilant population allows dangerous political developments for themselves (in UK all the time).

However, sometimes one only has to be free, or happy in order to be hated. Some miserable people are intolerant of happiness in others and willfully blind to the price at which freedom came.

The next edition of Charlie Hebdo comes out next week. Tearful survivor, a well known doctor and journalist Dr Patrick Peloux from Charlie Hebdo told French TV that he could not help the shot colleagues as so many were already dead. Not easy for a doctor or any person, but especially a doctor. Watch here in French

Wednesday, 7 January 2015

Unemployed doctors and nurses in UK at the same time as there is shortage of doctors and nurses in UK

For a long time now there has been a customary "execution" of doctors and nurses in the NHS
(National Health Service) if, for example, they questioned bad medical, nursing, management or political practise, or if practitioners just, simply, excelled in their work. NHS is a very large and very busy employer with direct links to the regulators so, dissenting voices, or unwelcome competitors can be silenced for ever. If not immediately then over a period of years sometimes lasting 15 years or more of continuous harassment through the regulators.

Now, once again, one presumes, prior to the next election NHS has been used to point the waiting times in Accident and Emergency Departments and therefore, "crises" in NHS is created. The hope one presumes is that the voters would go back to the previously elected party.

UK has many doctors and nurses who are unemployed and who have been educated for many years at  the great public and private expense. This is not a secret.

The government has not rehabilitated the whistle-blowers who having harmed not a single person have been allowed to suffer decades of public humiliations, financial disasters and much more hardship.

The regulators pretend they are helpless and unable to speak up about their errors even when they know them only too well. Where is their insight into their mistakes?

Yet, regulators have condemned professionals for their lack of insight (to insinuate mental derangement of any kind) when whistle-blowers point with the great insight what has gone wrong and what will go wrong in the future.

When overwhelming evidence was presented that future loss of life will happen the regulators have continued to pretend that there is nothing they can do to the present day. Self-regulation does not work. There are very good doctors and nurses in UK who also do not work and meanwhile people suffer harm.

Yes, more people will die because public quite simply allow it.

Wednesday, 6 August 2014

Professor Sasai commits suicide

Professor Sasai of stem cell research fame has committed suicide. Why? He was the head of the group of the researchers who claimed in Nature, a famous scientific journal to have found the way to make mature blood cells transform into stem cells i.e. pluripotentive cells. This caused a great deal of excitement in medical circles because research findings had enormous potential for healing.
However, there was a failure by a couple of research groups to replicate the findings of Professor Sasai which has held such big promise for medicine. Questions were asked about research findings by Professor Sasai's group.
Investigations were conducted by Riken Centre whose President is a Nobel prize winner and where researchers worked. One of the researchers, Dr Haruko Obokata (very attractive on media) was found guilty of misconduct. Reports in the media vary as to what actually went wrong, if anything.
The suicide of Professor Sasai shocked many. He blamed himself for not supervising research adequately.
Photo JIJI press AFK photo. A cientista japonesa Haruhiko Obokata, que trabalhou com Sasai, participa de uma entrevista coletiva. Foto: JIJI PRESS/AFP Photo
                                                            The crying of Dr Haruko Obokata

Mainichi Shimbun claimed that they obtained scientific data which showed a decline in the pluripotency of new
cells on different days.This decline in pluripotency may have led to different conclusions Riken Centre claimed.
Hmmm. It is already known that there are problems with stem cells and their survival from different researchers. That science evolves over the years is also known. So, why all this drama?
Dr Obokata has remained commited to her paper findings.
It is rather unlikely that the suicide of Professor Sasai would be the end of his or Dr Obokata's work,
 or the current enormous interest in stem cell research.

Tuesday, 1 July 2014

European Court of Human Rights upholds French ban on wearing of veil in public. Bravo!!!!

We have good news from the European Court of Human Rights: The court upheld French ban on the wearing of veil in public places.
hijab : A veiled woman isolated on a white background Stock PhotoAt the same time, we observe the sad state of affairs in England and other parts of the world where abuses of human rights continue and people even die because of religious privileges which allow inappropriate wearing of religious clothes. For example, in UK medical regulator, the General Medical Council persecuted for many years a whistle-blower, Dr Helen Bright, a psychiatrist after she objected to the wearing of religious uniforms by mental health workers when working with mentally ill people.  Finally, the regulator struck her off medical register although she never harmed any patients. Her research on religious uniforms was published although condemned by regulator as serious professional misconduct. Oh, well. Pity so many died needlessly and continue to do so. Especially, men who are three to four times more likely than women to commit suicides in UK. Over 80% of victims of sexual abuse by clergy are men. The system, obviously works against them.

Press release from European Court of Human Rights:
issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 191 (2014)
French ban on the wearing in public of clothing designed
to conceal one’s face does not breach the Convention
In today’s Grand Chamber judgment in the case of S.A.S. v. France (application no. 43835/11), which
is final1, the European Court of Human Rights held,
by a majority, that there had been no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family
life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and no violation of Article 9 (right to respect for
freedom of thought, conscience and religion);
unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the
European Convention combined with Articles 8 or 9.
The case concerned the complaint of a French national, who is a practising Muslim, that she is no
longer allowed to wear the full-face veil in public following the entry into force, on 11 April 2011, of
a law prohibiting the concealment of one’s face in public places (Law no. 2010-1192 of 11 October
The Court emphasised that respect for the conditions of “living together” was a legitimate aim for
the measure at issue and that, particularly as the State had a lot of room for manoeuvre (“a wide
margin of appreciation”) as regards this general policy question on which there were significant
differences of opinion, the ban imposed by the Law of 11 October 2010 did not breach the
Principal facts
The applicant is a French national who was born in 1990 and lives in France. She is a devout Muslim
and in her submissions she said that she wore the burqa and niqab in accordance with her religious
faith, culture and personal convictions. As she explained, the burqa is a full-body covering including a
mesh over the face, and the niqab is a full-face veil leaving an opening only for the eyes. The
applicant also emphasised that neither her husband nor any other member of her family put
pressure on her to dress in this manner. She added that she wore the niqab in public and in private,
but not systematically. She was thus content not to wear the niqab in certain circumstances but
wished to be able to wear it when she chose to do so. Lastly, her aim was not to annoy others but to
feel at inner peace with herself.
Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court
Relying in particular on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 9 (freedom of thought,
conscience and religion) and 10 (freedom of expression), the applicant complained that she was
unable to wear the full-face veil in public. Lastly, under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) she
complained that the ban led to discrimination on grounds of sex, religion and ethnic origin, to the
detriment of women who, like herself, wore the full-face veil.
The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 11 April 2011.
On 28 May 2013 the Chamber to which the case had been allocated relinquished jurisdiction in
favour of the Grand Chamber. A public hearing took place before the Grand Chamber in the Human
1 Grand Chamber judgments are final (Article 44 of the Convention).
All final judgments are transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of their
execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:
Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 27 November 2013. The following were authorised to intervene as
third parties (under Article 36 § 2 of the Convention) in the written procedure: the Belgian
Government, the Human Rights Centre of the University of Ghent, and the non-governmental
organisations Amnesty international, ARTICLE 19, Liberty, and Open Society Justice Initiative.
Judgment was given by the Grand Chamber of 17 judges, composed as follows:
Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), President,
Josep Casadevall (Andorra),
Guido Raimondi (Italy),
Ineta Ziemele (Latvia),
Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein),
Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenia),
Elisabeth Steiner (Austria),
Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan),
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (the “Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”),
Ledi Bianku (Albania),
Ganna Yudkivska (Ukraine),
Angelika Nußberger (Germany),
Erik Møse (Norway),
André Potocki (France),
Paul Lemmens (Belgium),
Helena Jäderblom (Sweden),
Aleš Pejchal (the Czech Republic),
and also Erik Fribergh, Registrar.
Decision of the Court
The Government questioned the applicant’s status as “victim”, particularly as no individual measure
had been taken against her pursuant to the Law of 11 October 2010. The Court dismissed that
preliminary objection. It reiterated that individuals were entitled to argue that a law breached their
rights if they were required either to modify their conduct or risk being prosecuted, or if they were
part of a category of persons who risked being directly affected by the legislation at issue. The
present application was not therefore an actio popularis2. The Court also dismissed the
Government’s preliminary objections alleging a failure to exhaust domestic remedies and an abuse
of the right of individual application.
The Court further declared inadmissible the applicant’s complaints under Articles 3 (prohibition of
inhuman or degrading treatment) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association), taken separately
and together with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).
Articles 8 and 9
The Court examined the applicant’s complaints under Articles 8 and 9, with emphasis on the latter.
While personal choices as to one’s appearance related to the expression of an individual’s
personality, and thus fell within the notion of private life, the applicant had complained that she was
prevented from wearing in public places clothing that she was required to wear by her religion, thus
mainly raising an issue with regard to the freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs.
The Court found that there had been a “continuing interference” with the exercise of the applicant’s
rights under Articles 8 and 9, as she was confronted with a dilemma: either she complied with the
ban and thus refrained from dressing in accordance with her approach to religion, or she refused to
2 Action by which an individual challenges in abstract terms the law or legal practice of a State in the collective interest.
comply and would face criminal sanctions. The Court further noted that the limitation in question
was prescribed by the Law of 11 October 2010.
The Court accepted that the interference pursued two of the legitimate aims listed in Articles 8 and
9: “public safety” and the “protection of the rights and freedoms of others”.
As regards the aim of “public safety”, the Court noted that the legislature had sought, by passing the
Law in question, to satisfy the need to identify individuals in order to prevent danger for the safety
of persons and property and to combat identity fraud. It considered, however, that the ban was not
“necessary in a democratic society” in order to fulfil that aim. In the Court’s opinion, in view of its
impact on the rights of women who wished to wear the full-face veil for religious reasons, a blanket
ban on the wearing in public places of clothing designed to conceal one’s face could be regarded as
proportionate only in a context where there was a general threat to public safety. The Government
had not shown that the ban introduced by the Law of 11 October 2010 fell into such a context. As to
the women concerned, they were thus obliged to give up completely an element of their identity
that they considered important, together with their chosen manner of manifesting their religion or
beliefs, whereas the objective alluded to by the Government could be attained by a mere obligation
to show their face and to identify themselves where a risk for the safety of persons and property
was established, or where particular circumstances prompted a suspicion of identity fraud.
As to the “protection of the rights and freedoms of others”, the Government referred to the need to
ensure “respect for the minimum set of values of an open democratic society”, listing three values in
that connection: respect for gender equality, respect for human dignity and respect for the
minimum requirements of life in society (or of “living together”). While dismissing the arguments
relating to the first two of those values, the Court accepted that the barrier raised against others by
a veil concealing the face in public could undermine the notion of “living together”. In that
connection, it indicated that it took into account the State’s submission that the face played a
significant role in social interaction. The Court was also able to understand the view that individuals
might not wish to see, in places open to all, practices or attitudes which would fundamentally call
into question the possibility of open interpersonal relationships, which, by virtue of an established
consensus, formed an indispensable element of community life within the society in question. The
Court was therefore able to accept that the barrier raised against others by a veil concealing the face
was perceived by the respondent State as breaching the right of others to live in a space of
socialisation which made living together easier. It added, however, that in view of the flexibility of
the notion of “living together” and the resulting risk of abuse, it had to engage in a careful
examination of the necessity of the measure at issue.
Proceeding with that examination, the Court had to ascertain, in particular, whether the ban was
proportionate to the aim pursued. It admitted that it might appear excessive, in view of the small
number of women concerned, to opt for a blanket ban. It further noted that the ban had a
significant negative impact on the situation of women who chose to wear the full-face veil for
reasons related to their beliefs, and that many national and international human rights bodies3
regarded a blanket ban as disproportionate. The Court also stated that it was very concerned by
indications that the debate which preceded the adoption of the Law of 11 October 2010 had been
marked by certain Islamophobic remarks. It emphasised in this connection that a State which
entered into a legislative process of this kind took the risk of contributing to the consolidation of the
stereotypes which affected specific groups of people and of encouraging the expression of
intolerance, when it had a duty, on the contrary, to promote tolerance. The Court reiterated that
remarks which constituted a general, vehement attack on a religious or ethnic group were
3 Among others, the French National Advisory Commission on Human Rights (see paragraphs 18-19 of the judgment), nongovernmental
organisations such as the third-party interveners, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
(paragraphs 35-36) and the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe (paragraph 37).
incompatible with the Convention’s underlying values of tolerance, social peace and nondiscrimination
and did not fall within the right to freedom of expression that it protected.
While the Court was aware that the disputed ban mainly affected certain Muslim women, it
nevertheless noted that there was no restriction on the freedom to wear in public any item of
clothing which did not have the effect of concealing the face and that the ban was not expressly
based on the religious connotation of the clothing in question but solely on the fact that it concealed
the face. In addition, the sanctions provided for by the Law were among the lightest that could have
been envisaged: a fine of 150 euros maximum and the possible obligation to follow a citizenship
course, in addition to or instead of the fine. Furthermore, as the question whether or not it should
be permitted to wear the full-face veil in public places constituted a choice of society, France had a
wide margin of appreciation. In such circumstances, the Court had a duty to exercise a degree of
restraint in its review of Convention compliance, since such review led it to assess a balance that had
been struck by means of a democratic process within the society in question. In the Court’s view, the
lack of common ground between the member States of the Council of Europe as to the question of
the wearing of the full-face veil in public places4 supported its finding that the State had a wide
margin of appreciation. The ban complained of could therefore be regarded as proportionate to the
aim pursued, namely the preservation of the conditions of “living together”. The Court held that
there had not been a violation of either Article 8 or Article 9 of the Convention.
Other Articles
The ban imposed by the Law of 11 October 2010 admittedly had specific negative effects on the
situation of Muslim women who, for religious reasons, wished to wear the full-face veil in public.
However, that measure had an objective and reasonable justification for the reasons previously
indicated. There had not therefore been a violation of Article 14 taken together with Articles 8 or 9.
The Court was also of the view that no separate issue arose under Article 10 of the Convention,
taken separately or together with Article 14.
Separate opinion
Judges Nuβberger and Jäderblom expressed a joint dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the
The judgment is available in English and French.
This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments
and further information about the Court can be found on To receive the Court’s press
releases, please subscribe here: or follow us on Twitter @ECHRpress.
Press contacts | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08
Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 3 90 21 58 77)
Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)
Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)
Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)
The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal
with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.
4 From a strictly normative standpoint, except for Belgium, no member State of the Council of Europe other than France
has, to date, opted for a ban on the wearing of the full-face veil in public. This question, nevertheless, is or has been a
subject of debate in a number of European States (see §§ 40-52 of the judgment).

Monday, 23 June 2014

Assisted Dying Bill and Dr Michael Irwin

MichaelIrwinDr Michael Irwin (photograph on the left, click on it to read more) worked as the medical director at United Nations. He is known for his humanitarian work in assisted dying which led to him being struck off medical register by the General Medical Council. He campaigned tirelessly for the right to die before and since. Now, new proposed changes (private bill by Lord Falconer) in law would mean that at least those with mental capacity and physical ability to take medication that would end their life would be able to do so if they have less than six months to live. Doctors would be allowed to prescribe such medication but not administer it themselves.
Dr Michael Irwin is a prominent member of the National Secular Society(NSS). Each year Irwin Prize, which he funds, is awarded to a prominent secularist.  Recently, NSS wrote about him HERE 
And here is the judgment by the General Medical Council to erase him from the medical register:
Fitness to PractiSe Panel
26 – 27 September 2005
Hearing Room 2, Regent’s Park, 350 Euston Road, London

Name of Respondent Doctor:       Dr Michael Henry Knox IRWIN

Registered Qualifications:              MB BS 1955 Lond

Registration Number:                      0014922

Type of Case:                                     New Misconduct/Caution

Panel Members:                                Professor K Hobbs, Chairman (Medical)
                                                               Mr R Bergman (Lay)         
                                                               Mr M Chapman (Lay)
                                                               Dr M Johnson (Medical)
                                                               Mrs L Lloyd (Lay)
Legal Assessor:                                Mr R Hay    

Secretary to the Panel:                    Christine Challis

GMC: Miss Alison Foster QC, instructed by GMCLegal represented the GMC

Doctor: Dr Irwin was present and not represented


“That you were on 6 July 2004, at Guildford Police Station, cautioned for an offence, which you admitted, that on 18 October 2003 at Cranleigh in Surrey, had in your possession 30 20mg tablets of Temazepam, a controlled drug of class C, with intent to supply it to Mr PK.” Admitted and found proved


“And that, being registered under the Medical Act 1983,

‘1.        On the dates specified in the allegations set out below, you were a UK registered medical practitioner; Admitted and found proved

‘2.        You were interviewed under caution by the Surrey and Sussex Police on 2 March 2004; Admitted and found proved

‘3.        At the interview under caution you admitted that,

a.         On 18 October 2003 and at Moss Pharmacy, Cranleigh, Surrey, you submitted a prescription for and obtained, in your own name and using your GMC registration number, 30 x 20mg tablets of Temazepam, Admitted and found proved

b.                  You travelled to Isle of Man on/about 19 October 2003 to visit
Mr PK, Admitted and found proved

c.         On your visit to the Isle of Man you had in your possession, a quantity of approximately 60 Temazepam tablets, which included the 30 x 20mg tablets obtained by you on 18 October 2003 at Moss Pharmacy, Cranleigh, Admitted and found proved

d.         You intended to supply Mr K with the quantity of Temazepam to assist him to commit suicide, Admitted and found proved

e.         i.          you also obtained travel-sickness tablets to provide to
Mr K to take with the Temazepam, Admitted and found proved

ii.         the travel sickness tablets would have assisted Mr K to hold down the Temazepam, which may otherwise have been difficult for him; Admitted and found proved

‘4.        You did not eventually supply to Mr K, the Temazepam that you had intended to supply to him, as he had become too ill to take it himself; Admitted and found proved

‘5.        On 6 July 2004, you accepted a caution from Surrey Police, for the offence of having in your possession with the intent to supply to Mr K, a Class C controlled drug, namely Temazepam; Admitted and found proved

‘6.        Your actions as set out at paragraphs 3.a., c., d. and e. above were,

a.         Unprofessional, Found proved

b.         Inappropriate, Found proved

c.         Irresponsible, Found proved

d.         Likely to bring the profession into disrepute; Found proved

[In reaching its findings in relation to allegations 6a, b, c and d, the Panel took into account the undisputed evidence that you obtained in your own name Temazepam, a Class C controlled drug, immediately before travelling to the Isle of Man intending to supply it to Mr K.  This was an act of deception.  Moreover, on 6 July 2004 you admitted an offence contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and, as a consequence, you were cautioned at Guildford Police Station. 

It is for these reasons that the Panel has found your actions in relation to allegations 3a, c, d and e to be unprofessional, inappropriate, irresponsible and likely to bring the profession into disrepute].

 ‘7.       You self-prescribed, during 2003, approximately 140 20mg tablets of Temazepam, using your GMC registration; Admitted and found proved

‘8.        At the interview under caution on 2 March 2004, you further admitted that,

a.         You had self-prescribed and obtained, using your GMC registration, 20 Temazepam tablets on 13 December 2003, being the day after your arrest, Admitted and found proved

b.         You had been self-prescribing Temazepam over a period of time, for the purposes of stockpiling it; Found proved

‘9.        On 25 January 2005, you self-prescribed and obtained, using your GMC registration, 30 x 20mg tablets of Temazepam, from Lloyds Pharmacy, Hove; Admitted and found proved

‘10.      On 31 January 2005, you self-prescribed and obtained, using your GMC registration, 30 x 20mg tablets of Temazepam, from Glaibyer and Kemp Dispensing Chemists, Hove; Admitted and found proved

‘11.      Your actions as set out at paragraphs 7. to 10. above were,

a.         Inappropriate, Found proved

b.         Irresponsible, Found proved

c.         Unprofessional;’ Found proved

[In reaching its findings in relation to allegations 11a, b and c, the Panel has taken account of your evidence that you self-prescribed Temazepam over a period of time with the intention of stockpiling the drug for your own use.  The Panel finds that the quantities self-prescribed were excessive.  Moreover, it is concerned that you kept these large quantities of Temazepam without secure storage arrangements.  Temazepam is a drug of addiction with a street value in the illicit drugs trade.  It is for these reasons that the Panel has found your actions to be inappropriate, irresponsible and unprofessional. ]

Determination on impaired fitness to practise

“Dr Irwin

The Panel has considered the submissions made by Miss Foster, your own comments to the Panel and the advice of the Legal Assessor.  The Panel has determined that your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of your misconduct and the Police caution.

The Panel found that the Police caution and your misconduct were sufficient for it to determine that your fitness to practise is impaired.  Indeed, the Panel regard either of these matters individually as serious enough to amount to impairment.

The Panel has referred to the May 2001 edition of ‘Good Medical Practice’; in particular it has noted the requirements that a medical practitioner must be honest and trustworthy and avoid abusing his position as a doctor.  Furthermore, paragraph 11 of the same edition states: “Some parts of medical practice are governed by law or are regulated by other statutory bodies.  You must observe and keep up to date with the laws and statutory codes of practice which affect your work”.  The Panel is of the view that you have been in breach of these requirements by committing the serious criminal offence of possessing Temazepam, a class C controlled drug with intent to supply.  This resulted in the Police caution. 

Furthermore, you admitted that you dishonestly self-prescribed this drug ostensibly for your own use when in fact it was intended for another. This, together with your repeated self-prescribing of supplies of Temazepam for the purposes of stockpiling for your own use against the advice of your general practitioner, amounts to an abuse of the trust placed in you as a doctor.  In all the circumstances, you have abused your position as a doctor.

The Panel will now invite further submissions from Miss Foster as to the appropriate sanction, if any, to be imposed on your registration.  Following Miss Foster’s submissions you will be given the opportunity to respond and to call any evidence if you wish to do so.

As is usual in these proceedings, the Panel will expect both parties to make reference to the GMC’s Indicative Sanctions Guidance when making submissions.“

Determination on sanction

“Dr Irwin

The Panel hereby revokes the order for the suspension of your registration made by the Interim Orders Panel on 3 February 2005.

On 6 July 2004 you were cautioned at Guildford Police Station for an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.  You had admitted that on 18 October 2003 you had in your possession 30 x 20 mg tablets of Temazepam, a controlled drug of class C, with intent to supply it to Mr PK.

When you were interviewed under caution by the Surrey and Sussex Police on
2 March 2004 you admitted that on 18 October 2003 at Moss Pharmacy, Cranleigh, Surrey, you self-prescribed using your GMC registration number and obtained
30 x 20mg tablets of Temazepam, a class C controlled drug. 

You travelled to the Isle of Man on 19 October 2003 to visit Mr PK and you had in your possession, a quantity of approximately 60 Temazepam tablets.  You have admitted that you intended to supply Mr K with the Temazepam to assist him to commit suicide.  You also obtained travel-sickness tablets to provide for
Mr K to take with the Temazepam to facilitate his oral retention of the tablets.  In the event you did not supply to Mr K the Temazepam as he had become too ill to take it himself.

The Panel has found that your actions as set out above were unprofessional, inappropriate, irresponsible and likely to bring the profession into disrepute.

You also admitted that you self-prescribed, during 2003, approximately 140 20mg tablets of Temazepam, using your GMC registration.  At the interview under caution on 2 March 2004, you further admitted that you had self-prescribed and obtained, using your GMC registration, 20 Temazepam tablets on 13 December 2003, the day after your arrest. 

On 25 January 2005 and 31 January 2005, you self-prescribed and obtained from different pharmacies using your GMC registration, 30 x 20mg tablets of Temazepam on each occasion.   You issued the prescriptions immediately before the scheduled hearing of your case before the Interim Orders Panel on 3 February 2005. You had been self-prescribing Temazepam over a period of time, for the purposes of stockpiling it.

The Panel has found that your actions were inappropriate, irresponsible and unprofessional.

In all the circumstances, your actions fell well below the standard expected of a registered medical practitioner and the Panel determined that by reason of the Police caution and the above misconduct, your fitness to practise is impaired. 

The Panel has referred to the May 2001 edition of ‘Good Medical Practice’; in particular it has noted the requirements that a medical practitioner must be honest and trustworthy and avoid abusing his position as a doctor.  Furthermore, paragraph 11 of the same edition states: “Some parts of medical practice are governed by law or are regulated by other statutory bodies.  You must observe and keep up to date with the laws and statutory codes of practice which affect your work”.  The Panel has found that you have been in breach of these requirements by committing the serious criminal offence of possessing Temazepam, a class C controlled drug with intent to supply. 

Furthermore, you admitted that you dishonestly self-prescribed this drug ostensibly for your own use when in fact it was intended for another. This, together with your repeated self-prescribing of supplies of Temazepam for the purposes of stockpiling for your own use against the advice of your general practitioner, amounts to an abuse of the trust placed in you as a doctor.  In all the circumstances, you have abused your position as a doctor.

Medical practitioners have a duty to act honestly and within the law, and uphold the trust placed in them.  The matters before this Panel are serious and give rise to a clear and obvious risk to patients and could seriously undermine the confidence and trust that the public is entitled to place in the medical profession. 

The Panel was concerned also about your lack of insight into the seriousness of your actions and your lack of professional judgement. 

The Panel has considered the submissions made by Miss Foster on behalf of the GMC as to the appropriate sanction it should impose, your comments to the Panel and the advice of the Legal Assessor.  The Panel has also had regard to the GMC’s Indicative Sanctions Guidance and the GMC’s publication ‘Good Medical Practice’. The Panel is conscious of the fact that the purpose of sanctions is not to be punitive, but to protect patients and the public interest. Public interest includes not only the protection of patients but also the maintenance of public confidence in the profession, and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. 

In determining the appropriate sanction in your case, the Panel first considered whether it would be sufficient to place conditions on your registration.  In doing so it has had regard to the issue of proportionality and has balanced the interests of patients and the public interest against your interests. Any conditions would need to be appropriate, proportionate, workable and measurable. The Panel considers that your actions were so serious that it is insufficient, in the public interest, to impose this sanction. Further, the Panel considers that it would not be possible to formulate any appropriate conditions. 

The Panel then went on to consider whether it would be sufficient to direct that your registration be suspended.  Your actions amounted to a serious abuse of your position of trust. The Panel is concerned that you do not fully accept the seriousness and potential consequences of your actions for which you have expressed no remorse.  The Panel has also concluded that there would be no remedial value to a suspension of registration.

Your actions were:

  • A serious departure from the relevant professional standards set out in Good Medical Practice
  • An abuse of position of trust
  • Dishonest
  • An indication of persistent lack of insight

The Panel has therefore concluded that it would not be sufficient to suspend your registration.  Accordingly, the Panel has no alternative but to direct the erasure of your name from the medical register.

This means that, unless you exercise your right of appeal, this direction will take effect 28 days from when written notice of this determination is deemed to have been served upon you.  A note explaining your right of appeal will be provided to you.

Having reached a decision that your name should be erased from the medical register, the Panel is minded to consider whether your registration should also be suspended immediately. The Panel will now invite submissions from Miss Foster and then from you, Dr Irwin, on this matter.”

Determination on immediate sanction

“Dr Irwin

The Panel has considered the submissions made by Miss Foster as to whether or not the Panel should direct that your registration be suspended with immediate effect.  The Panel notes that you do not oppose this course of action.

In view of the serious nature of matters for which you received a Police caution and the findings in relation to your misconduct, the Panel considers that it is necessary, for the protection of members of the public, in the public interest and in your own interests, to exercise its powers under section 38 (1) of the Medical Act 1983, as amended.  The Panel has therefore directed that your registration shall be suspended with effect from today.

The effect of this direction is that your registration will be suspended from today.  Unless you exercise your right of appeal, the direction for the erasure of your name from the Medical Register as previously announced, will take effect on the expiry of the 28 day appeal period.

That concludes the hearing.”


October 2005                                                                                                    Chairman