Friday, 1 April 2011

Rev. Kevin Annett calls for a Republic of Canada

Photo Taya Uddin/Landmark Media
Click on photo to watch Media Award winning documentary

Kevin is in Toronto with Thahoketoteh of Kanekota (Project for Peace) talking about the Upper Canada Rebellion of 1837. History seems to be repeating itself with Kevin calling for a Republic of Canada that is truly independent of the Crown of England - a union of people nations. Common Law courts of the land to replace the existing corrupt system and public airways to be kept public. Kevin is interviewed about the story on the Hamilton Police, how he was given the name Eagle Strong Voice and much more.

Click here to watch:

Written by:

Whistleblower, Kevin Annett First European Speaking Tour: UK and Irish Leg


Anonymous said...

To General Medical Council:

We have noticed that you are reading articles on D4J site in ineffective and inefficient manner many times. Repeatedly you are reading our Aims and Objectives and looking up the Profile of the blogger. This is because you are not reading the articles properly, in multimedia fashion. You are supposed to click on links in text or photographs as per direction in the article in order to understand what the articles is about. This would then give you some idea of the relevance to health and justice. For example, if you clicked on Rev. Kevin Annett photograph in this article visited this morning five times by you, you would have watched award winning short film Unrepentant. Rev. Kevin Annett exposed large scale child abuse and murders in religious schools in Canada and suffered persecution by his own church where he worked as a minister. Whistleblowers become subject of sham peer reviews as you would know from the behavior of GMC towards UK whistleblowers. So, if you were attentive to links you would not have to read Aims and Objectives of D4J again and again. It would have become obvious to you that child abuse is something to do with poor health. GMC has prosecuted for many years doctors who take interest in the subject of child abuse and protected doctors who breach GMC guidance on Good Medical Practice. In other words you would have seen the relevance of this article to you as a regulator who repeatedly denied any responsibility for the protection of doctors who are Human Rights Defenders.

I hope this helps you.

If you are not able for IT reasons to watch films, please ask GMC IT Department to help you.

Anonymous said...

Fully agreed and impressed by your vigilance.

GMC and other regulatory bodies work mainly for the NHS/Department of Health. They all claim they support whistleblowers, but in reality, its the other way around. Even the following consultation which is ending on 3 Jun 11, seems to be a white wash.

Anonymous said...

Dear GMC
The burden placed on you by everyone including the NHS bodies and the Dept of health have led to your 'Dinosaur' situation . We need a different structures with more accountability and transaparency with prompt addressal, remedies and action ( or refusal of action) mechanisms which respect Human rights of every one involved ( not just the employees) . The only way forward is dissolution of the GMC and the Revoke of Medical Act . Establishing regional councils with new Medical act/s would be a first step. But does it sound too good to become true? Yes.

Anonymous said...

Overseas doctors more likely to face serious action by the GMC
By Mike Broad - 6th April 2011 1:04 pm
GMC decisions about doctors who qualified outside the UK are more likely to have far reaching consequences, research reveals.

The authors, led by Professor Charlotte Humphrey from King’s College London, say there is no clear reason why overseas doctors do worse in GMC fitness to practise processes than their UK-trained peers.

Humphrey argues that perhaps “real differences exist in fitness to practise between groups of doctors who are referred to the GMC” or “that the GMC processes tend to discriminate against certain groups of doctors.”

However, the authors stress that their research makes it “difficult to reach a conclusion that clearly supports either of these potential explanations and both might be valid”.

The study looked at GMC cases between 1 April 2006 and 31 March 2008. The researchers reviewed the background to 7,526 inquiries to the GMC concerning 6,954 doctors. They assessed how many inquiries were referred for further investigation, how many were investigated and then referred for adjudication, and how many resulted in doctors being erased or suspended from the medical register.

The results published on show that of the 7,526 inquiries, 4,702 related to doctors who had qualified in the UK, 624 in the European Union and 2,190 who had qualified outside the EU. At the initial GMC stage 29% of inquiries concerning UK qualified doctors had a high impact decision compared with 43% for EU doctors and 46% for non-EU doctors.

At the adjudication stage 1% of UK qualified doctors were erased or suspended from the medical register compared to 4% of EU doctors and 3% of non-EU doctors.

The authors conclude that their research raises questions about the GMC fitness to practise processes. They speculate that inquiries involving UK-qualified doctors are being assessed less seriously than those involving non-UK qualified doctors.
Humphrey and colleagues also question whether some non-UK qualified doctors may not be well placed to defend themselves or challenge decisions compared to their UK-trained colleagues.

In an accompanying editorial, Marcella Nunez-Smith, Assistant Professor at Yale University School of Medicine, says that given the rise in the dependence on foreign-trained doctors in countries like the UK and US, it is essential to determine “whether international medical graduates offer the same quality of care as doctors who train and practise in destination countries”.

Nunez-Smith argues that Humphrey’s research is a critical contribution to the debate but that “additional research on the association between other doctor related characteristics, such as ethnicity, and the fitness to practise process is needed”.

Read the full study.

Read a related news story.

Tags: fitness to practise, GMC, overs

Anonymous said...

Go Kevin, go!!:-) The word is spreading. Down with the Crown and long live the Republic of Canada!