Resignation/Fired

Thursday

Resignation/Fired

In R v General Medical Council Ex Parte Pal 2009, Mark Shaw QC argued that I had "resigned" from my locum post following the GMC investigation. Of course, Shaw QC had run off to the Trust to extract what I would call an outright dishonesty. Dr Monteiro Consultant and Clinical Lead with his MD decided to support the GMC's case. Of course, the problem with Shaw, Choong and Monteiro is that they failed to note one point - that there was a paper trail detailing the "Firing".

Despite the fact that the paperwork [ verified by an ET Chairman] outlined the origin of the end of the contract [ from the Trust], Shaw QC decided to create a cloud of uncertainty by using a statement from Dr Monteiro. The statement stated that I had resigned. Of course, no one was able to produce a resignation letter. Anyhow, the tale is described here.

The doctors at Worcestershire Mental Health Trust were subsequently subject to a GMC investigation for dishonesty in a court document.

This was how Mark Shaw QC tried to establish that the case was academic and that I had suffered no detriment. Reality though is beginning to dawn on the General Medical Council and Shaw.

0 comments:

Post a Comment

About this website

This website is about the General Medical Council's actions against a NHS whistleblower. They conducted a series of revolving door complaints against me between the years 2000-2009.

I am an evidence based NHS whistleblower who raised justified concerns on Ward 87 North Staffordshire NHS Trust in 1999. Many years later, the Care Quality Commission documents showed that the Trust had a increased mortality rate and higher litigation costs than Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust.

Instead of conducting an investigation into the deaths on Ward 87, in the year 2000, the GMC conducted a unlawful "discreet inquiry" into my fitness to practise. On discovery of this in the year 2004, I sued the General Medical Council successfully. During the litigation, the GMC instigated a complaint on defamation. They later admitted their procedures do not deal with defamation despite subjecting me to a six month investigation before clearing me.

The General Medical Council subsequently instigated a spurious complaint on a "link" on the internet and my use of the term "psychiatrist".Having subjected me to a six month investigation whilerecklessly spreading dishonesties to the Trust I was working for, the GMC cleared me. The Trust in question fired me on the GMC's word and the General Medical Council subsequently went on to term it a "resignation" in court. To date, the General Medical Council have not been able to establish a resignation of any kind. Effective as of 2007, my references were stigmatised with a termination of employment and all my future application forms required a declaration of the GMC's spurious investigation. This prejudice to future employment is well understood by all doctors.

To prevent vexatious complaints against doctors, I challenged the General Medical Council in court in 2009. Unfortunately, due to judicial errors, the case did not have the result we expected. Permission to hear the case was won. Sadly, the actual case did not succeed at final hearing. It was heard by Justice Collins who was effectively persuaded by the GMC's blatant dishonesties.

The case though continues following the conflict between R v GMC Ex Parte Pal and R v GMC Ex Parte Remedy UK. The assessment to ensure there is a balance between doctors' and the complainants interests is yet to be analysed by higher courts. The story has not ended.

In the meantime, I have sought to write my thoughts on being a whistleblower, the character assassinations conducted by the GMC and its associates. The GMC networks fairly well and their vested interests have always been clear to all in the medical profession. In 2011, the General Medical Council issued an apology for their behaviour against me.

This is the reality of whistleblowing in the National Health Service. In addition, the domino effect of the entrenched defamation caused by the GMC is often never ending. This website is designed to raise these important issues because there is no media support for whistleblowers who face this kind of establishment assassination. We have attempted to detail this in our paper that can be downloaded through this petition - Whistleblowing and Patient Safety.

Members of the public and journalists may find this summary of the General Medical Council written by me useful.

I hope that this website goes some way to show how difficult life is for a NHS Whistleblower. I raised concerns in 1998, the repercussions are still ongoing in 2012. In 2004, Judge Harris compared the GMC to a totalitarian regime. Its failures in public safety and its inability to regulate doctors fairly is detailed very well by the media.

Pages

Pal v General Medical Council

Thursday