|
|
|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
|
|
DOCTORS ON TRIAL CHANNEL 4 15th October 2000 EXPOSING THE MEDIA FOR WHO THEY ARE TRICK OR TREAT ? HUBBLE BUBBLE - GMC IN TROUBLE To join the bandwagon, the Doctors on Trial team conjured up the idea of a prosecution and the defence to see whether self regulation works with respect to the GMC . The audience were to be the jury and an the end of the programme would vote on the above issue . To the polite and elite class this would have been a gentle swipe to settle the public into a false sense of security . Just to provide you with an adequate background . The producer of the show refused to admit me saying " we have adequate whistleblowers " . Ofcourse, they did have a whistleblower in the audience who whistled on a colleague . Ofcourse, it is a whole new different kettle of fish when you whistleblow on a system's incompetence . . It was not only myself that was prevented from Freedom of Expression given that it has been a high profile case debated in the House of Lords . My colleague Mr Arpad Toft has been denied the opportunity to provide the most damning evidence that elucidates that the GMC are indeed incapable of self regulation adequately . Mr Toft single-handedly is the only man to win a judicial review against the GMC showing the failure of their complaints procedure . This decision has ofcourse been kept from the public as it is an embarrassment to the establishment . Mr Arpad Toft has said that he informed the producers of a document recently provided by the Policy Institute that has studied the GMC complaints procedure in great detail . This was a damning report elucidating that the GMC are infact biased , spend only approximately 5 minutes on a complaint and is in many cases have failed the public . The question we must ask ourself is why did the producers omit this vital document ? Was it because the producers were too " establishment " to even realise or was it because they wished the public to be in the dark . Our NHS Exposed spies were in the audience and it was calculated that the majority of individuals were doctors . Thus we have a biased jury not chosen at random as the any court of law would have . Again we have doctors voting for the issue of self regulation . Justified or not ? A certain conflict of interest me thinks ! The programme featured great barristers like old Jane Ritchie whose monologues were simply tiresome . It featured the infamous necklace given by a patient to a GP to show her gratitude . This was ofcourse nothing to do with the issue at hand and deviated the audiences attention . On occasion one wondered whether the necklace was given to choke the GP given her opinions given her rather pointless evidence . Witnesses were given five minutes to speak and often the barrister would ask the question and answer them by monologues . The opposition consisting of Dr Phil Hammond attempted wonderfully to display some relevant statistics which were spoken over hence the material was muffled and hidden . Two people talking simultaneously did not do much for audience comprehension . In essence we saw the egos of the barristers in full flow not proving or disproving the case but merely showcasing themselves. A case of wig exposed perhaps! The interesting issue was when the whistleblower said that " his colleagues were supportive yet the management were not " . Pray Mr whistleblower , who is the management - don't we consider that it may have been the medical director who may have been one of the consultants and is infact influenced by the clinicians ! Blame was placed on the management to pass the buck . This received a " clap " from the audience ( most of whom were doctors ) . " Everything is the management's fault and doctors are angels ". In essence this jury trial was nothing more than a farce obtaining a result that was very close . In summary there were a) Too many witnesses of the wrong sort In essence the programme was shallow with no substance to it . Failing to include independent evidence from the Policy Institute was gross negligence on the producer's part . Then again producers do not listen to the real people at the heart of the action . Furthermore, they prepare programmes that are not researched and are led by establishment corrupt associations like AVMA . Long may Channel 4 reign . The media cannot be relied on to assist the public and provide the truth because they simply are incapable of producing anything resembling the protection of the rights of those who suffer in silence . Trick or Treat ? The medical profession continues to brew another cauldron . Hubble bubble, toil and trouble - may the GMC disappear in a puff of smoke . The spell is set , the potion is boiled , the future is bright - THE FUTURE SHOWS THE GMC IN A CAULDRON OF HOT BREW READY TO DISAPPEAR INTO A PINK CLOUD OF SMOKE . Subspell - Sir Donald Irvine turned into the prodigal toad sitting on the pink cloud screaming " where is my peerage , where is my peerage " ! Dr Rita Pal For the attention of the GMC NB Note for the GMC - I understand there are some damning emails being sent between your workers listing many items about the GMC . How interesting don't you think ! Love to Townsend - hope he has destroyed the files ! Nudge nudge wink wink ! Still resorting to the old boys network !? How pathetic !? How is the freemasonry list going and can we have a copy ! WHY HAS THE MEDIA PREVENTED MR POWELL'S FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION ? Mr William Powell recently presented his case after many years of litigation , to the European Court of Human Rights . The judgement provided was vital in ascertaining that doctors are given the "RIGHT TO LIE " . Doctors on Trial prevented his judgement from being known . The question is WHY ? Dear NHS EXPOSED I attach a fax I sent to Doctors on Trial on 27th October 2000. Following the programme I was informed by the prosecution QC that my fax was not brought to her attention. . My offer to participate in the programme was also rejected as it was claimed that I would not be impartial. Ironic don't you think? The programme was clearly a damage limitation exercise for the GMC, government and the medical profession. Mr William Powell BY FAX - 4 PAGES - 27th September 2000 To: Jane [Researcher for Doctors on Trial] Below is the last paragraph of page 15 of 26 of the European Court of Human Rights' decision that my Application to Europe was inadmissible. I have also attached the GP magazine article dated 11th July 1997 that is also referred to below and Sunday Telegraph dated 6th July 1997. "Whilst it is arguable that doctors had a duty not to falsify medical records under the common law (Sir Donaldson MR's "duty of candour"), before Powell v Boladz there was no binding decision of the courts as to the existence of such a duty. As the law stands now, however, doctors have no duty to give parents of a child who died as a result of their negligence a truthful account of the circumstances of the death, nor even to refrain from deliberately falsifying records." In response to this astonishing judgment the British Medical Association stated [GP Magazine 11/7/97]: "GPs could now put a gloss on the cause of death without fear of litigation." If you are interested in the full judgment please telephone or fax me with your e-mail address and I will forward it to you [Tel/Fax: xxxxx xxxxxx]. In any event could you please acknowledge receipt of this fax? Kind regards.
|
|
|
|
|
[Home] [NHS Exposed] [Patients] [Health Workers] [NHS in Crisis] [Legal Issues] [Media] [Helpdesk] [Public Views] All copyright remains with original authors unless otherwise stated. |
