|
|
|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
|
|
What Really Happened to Dr Jennifer Colman Index
Chapter One : The Facts behind the Myth The GMC involvement with Cambridge, Gt Yarmouth and Central
Notts. The letter written by Alan Mousley in June 1985 to the GMC was appended to a screening note from Mrs Zincke to Robert Gray on which he wrote that it was a potential health case but they still lacked evidence. It is difficult to know what they based this on other than Dr Harris had suggested that Dr Colman might be suffering from porphyria, be mentally ill and a lesbian with no insight who also avoided men in authority. It also has to be remembered that Dr Harris was a “desk doctor” and had never met Dr Colman when she made her assertions, and certainly had never attended on Dr Colman as a patient. Also on the one occasion when Dr Colman did meet Dr Harris very briefly in late July 1985, and after her imprudent actions, Dr Harris seemed to be taken aback and suggested that Dr Colman was not who she thought she was. Did Dr Harris mistake Dr Colman for another doctor? It seems she may have and having created all the debacle was not prepared to come clean or undo the damage she had done. Certainly Dr Colman knew nothing of what Dr Harris had done until last year and the GMC hid her behind a veil of secrecy. In spite of the lack of evidence John Walton, as screener and President of the GMC wrote, on 20 June 1985 that it would be plainly improper (and dangerous) for Dr Colman to be fully registered. This is the screening note with John Walton’s handwritten note also, which he admits to: John Walton wrote: “I agree – I’ve added a few words.
This could be a health case – in the meantime it would plainly be
improper (and dangerous) for her to be fully registered. Mindful of Good Medical Practise, Solicitors acting for Dr Colman and the MPS wrote to Lord Walton in October 2005 asking him whether it was his own handwriting and about his function as the screener. All parties were aware then that Lord Walton was the only screener in the GMC and had undertaken to the Commons Health Select Committee, who were already unimpressed with the GMC in the 1980s, that during his time as the President that he would act as the screener. He replied by return to the solicitors and somewhat surprisingly and wrongly suggested that there were other screeners besides himself and admitted that it was his handwriting on the screening note. Dr Colman and her legal team were deeply concerned about Lord Walton’s memory lapse, for he was describing the screening process as it was sometime after he had left the Council. He said nothing about himself being the single screener. Therefore Dr Colman’s legal team wrote further with more probing questions, and also sent a copy of a letter which Le Brasseur had sent to John Walton as president of the GMC on 1 February 1988 about Robert Gray’s behaviour, and to which he had never replied. This was a serious letter which ought to have had a satisfactory reply at the time. Dr Colman had waited for seventeen years for a reply from Lord Walton. A copy of the letter sent in 1988 and re-sent to John Walton in November 2005 can be seen below. However Lord Walton did not reply again to the new letter or the copy of the letter sent to him on 1 February 1988. Even if he did not see the letter in 1988 he certainly saw it this time. Dr Colman’s solicitor sent a further reminder which drew a rapid response by telephone and the letter dated 6 December 2005, also below, when he referred himself to his defence union. Lord Walton has never explained himself. However the doctors who support Dr Colman believe Lord Walton, as a registered medical practitioner who must be bound by the GMC’s own code of Good Medical Practise should give an account of his actions which had such a catastrophic effect on Dr Colman’s professional and personal life for the past twenty two years. Lord Walton, a peer of the realm, has been found out. To bury his head in the sand and say nothing and offer no explanation, apology or remedy is to continue to victimise Dr Colman, who has waited patiently for a year for him to speak and a further eighteen years for a reply to the letter sent to him in 1988. As Lord Walton remains silent and in spite of the lack of evidence then, or later, at that point in time and thereafter, Dr Colman’s supporters can only conclude that it was John Walton’s intention to deprive Dr Colman of her livelihood. No one from the GMC had written to her or contacted her ask whether any of this information and unsubstantiated allegations was true during the 17 month covert trawl in 1985 and 1986. John Walton acted on the assumption that it must be true regardless and to act unfairly and abuse a position of power such as John Walton had, which caused Dr Colman to ultimately lose her registration and therefore injure her so catastrophically cannot be said to be acting in the public interest. In that case even if his predominant intention at that point was not to injure Dr Colman his actions, which were unfair, did severely injure her. This is a profile of Lord Walton: A more extensive account of Lord Walton is found in Who’s Who. His actions then in 1985 and later and later in 1986, as the most senior doctor in the country and therefore with immense power and responsibility neither of which ought to be abused, wrecked a third of Dr Colman’s life. They were compounded a year later when and contrary to the evidence which Alan Howes, assistant registrar of the GMC, pointed out twice did not amount to anything, and also by then Robert Gray had also written that there was no future in exploring health and also that he saw very little point in exploring the conduct aspect of the case, Lord Walton still wrote in his own handwriting, (top right hand corner) “On all the evidence this lady should never have been allowed to qualify – please write a Rule 6(3) letter even though the case is unlikely to come to anything.” This is the note: What John Walton wrote in itself is contradictory shows that there is insufficient or no evidence. However although Robert Gray had suggested there was no future in exploring health or conduct he still maintained that Dr Colman suffered from psychiatric problems when she had never been asked, seen or examined by any psychiatrist for the GMC. This had become a folie a deux between John Walton and Robert Gray, who had developed a dependency upon each other as Dr Harris fed in her fantasies about Dr Colman by letter and by telephone and whom she had never met at that point. The GMC has a duty towards registered doctors who rely upon them for the licence to work, that they will act fairly and lawfully in the investigation of any complaint and that they will not put any doctor in the frame or conduct trawls and fishing expeditions or take the view that a doctor should not be fully registered, as John Walton did with Dr Colman based at it’s highest on his own “feeling”.
|
|
|
|
|
[Home] [NHS Exposed] [Patients] [Health Workers] [NHS in Crisis] [Legal Issues] [Media] [Helpdesk] [Public Views] All copyright remains with original authors unless otherwise stated. |
