Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Petition To Gmc To Reconsider Firing Dr Wolverson.
134 Answers
This is the doctor who ask a mother to lift her veil so he could hear clearly what she was telling him about her child's symptoms. I believe it is her husband who is complaining, not his wife.
Will you sign please?
https:/
Thank you to those who have signed.
Will you sign please?
https:/
Thank you to those who have signed.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ladybirder. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
o go and have a milk shake retro and try not to spill any darn your front..... you never know who's about [wivva ciddie]
the petition would be the stupidest thing I have read on the internet if I hadnt read some of the posts
[er that would be stanley baldwin - [ fooder fella in BlackKlansMan after he left Corrie? - yeah dat one] - The mine unions( 1926) were the stupidest men I had ever met if I hadnt met the mine owners]
he hasnt been referred
he hasnt been fired
The GMC is about registration, not employment and is not a doctors employer
[altho Sqad will dimly remember that there is an implied clause in every doctors employment contract that he is resgistered with the GMC [Tarnesby v West Kenn]]
it does matter who complains altho anyone can ( Dob-in-a-doc campaign 2000- present ) . Clearly here it matters whether the mother complains or not. - and if she complains and there is a case, will she be allowed to give evidence behind a veil
[ or - - will the GMC HEAR it - haw haw haw haw !]
and if he resigns - will they continue - yes so long as he is registered, so long as THEIR criteria are met - (if there a possibility that fitness to practise is impaired). and yes the GMC make it all up as they go along ....
.... the stupidest thing on the internet to day, so as a leading deep thinker of AB - - I have of course acted in character and SIGNED !
and even asked my non-registered family to sign
including
Mith Lithper " can I thign daddy?' aged 6
the petition would be the stupidest thing I have read on the internet if I hadnt read some of the posts
[er that would be stanley baldwin - [ fooder fella in BlackKlansMan after he left Corrie? - yeah dat one] - The mine unions( 1926) were the stupidest men I had ever met if I hadnt met the mine owners]
he hasnt been referred
he hasnt been fired
The GMC is about registration, not employment and is not a doctors employer
[altho Sqad will dimly remember that there is an implied clause in every doctors employment contract that he is resgistered with the GMC [Tarnesby v West Kenn]]
it does matter who complains altho anyone can ( Dob-in-a-doc campaign 2000- present ) . Clearly here it matters whether the mother complains or not. - and if she complains and there is a case, will she be allowed to give evidence behind a veil
[ or - - will the GMC HEAR it - haw haw haw haw !]
and if he resigns - will they continue - yes so long as he is registered, so long as THEIR criteria are met - (if there a possibility that fitness to practise is impaired). and yes the GMC make it all up as they go along ....
.... the stupidest thing on the internet to day, so as a leading deep thinker of AB - - I have of course acted in character and SIGNED !
and even asked my non-registered family to sign
including
Mith Lithper " can I thign daddy?' aged 6
// Corby, as I u/s it, if you are investigated by your professional body, then the possibility of erasure is never excluded.//
there is now a HUGE body of law on this because of Sqad and his colleagues laziness and laxity in making sure the rules wer sensbile - O miser Catulle ! sqade I mean...
and is now paid for by sqad and his colleagues - oh penurious sqad but well they did this to themselves
and so.....
investigation has a formal meaning
the dad yowling deffo doesnt mean an investigation.
Dad posting a letter to the GMC doesnt mean investigation,
GMC writing and saying we got the ledda - may NOT mean an investigation
GMC writing a ledda and saying yes were are investigating doffo means they are investigating.
what really? - a thousand ABers adnenoidally whine
- stream I and stream 2 ( speed ) and the criteria is - if it is all true is the fitness to practise of the practitioner impaired
what really? - a thousand ABers adnenoidally whine
the GMC officially announced recently they now had NO cases outsranding for TEN years
what really? - a thousand ABers adnenoidally whine
you mean they once had ..... yes
The cases take about two years to get to a hearing
what really? - a thousand ABers adnenoidally whine
and so you can really screw up a doctors life for two years by making frivolous complaints
what really? - a thousand ABers adnenoidally whine
yeah and how !
and you dont need a complaint - the GMC proceeded on a report in the News of the Screws once
what really? - a thousand ABers adnenoidally whine
yeah - sale of slimming pills without a consultation
and you remember Ebola - Dr Ryan did NOT alter an entry at London Airport - that was a lie spread by the then haad office of the PHLS and the alteration was obviously in someone elses handwriting
but the GMC still proceeded ( two week hearing ) and found fitness to practise impaired
what really? - a thousand ABers adnenoidally whine
[and yes the one spreading the lie was another doctor but was never proceeded against and anyway the GMC is about doctors and not hospitals or laboratories (but the doctors who work in them)]
and the GMC is a court under the courts act 1984 but when they tried to have the Beeb committed for contempt, the high court said - yes it is a court but it doesnt have the power to commit for contempt or refer to another court to commit for contempt
what really? - a thousand ABers adnenoidally whine
yeah really - AG ex p GMC v BBC no 2 3001.
The Beeb reported a GMC case whilst it was going on - [hey shades of Tarmy Robinson]. The GMC referred the Beeb for contempt to the High Court and the High Court Judge said: "so what, case dismissed"
er so that covers investigation
there is now a HUGE body of law on this because of Sqad and his colleagues laziness and laxity in making sure the rules wer sensbile - O miser Catulle ! sqade I mean...
and is now paid for by sqad and his colleagues - oh penurious sqad but well they did this to themselves
and so.....
investigation has a formal meaning
the dad yowling deffo doesnt mean an investigation.
Dad posting a letter to the GMC doesnt mean investigation,
GMC writing and saying we got the ledda - may NOT mean an investigation
GMC writing a ledda and saying yes were are investigating doffo means they are investigating.
what really? - a thousand ABers adnenoidally whine
- stream I and stream 2 ( speed ) and the criteria is - if it is all true is the fitness to practise of the practitioner impaired
what really? - a thousand ABers adnenoidally whine
the GMC officially announced recently they now had NO cases outsranding for TEN years
what really? - a thousand ABers adnenoidally whine
you mean they once had ..... yes
The cases take about two years to get to a hearing
what really? - a thousand ABers adnenoidally whine
and so you can really screw up a doctors life for two years by making frivolous complaints
what really? - a thousand ABers adnenoidally whine
yeah and how !
and you dont need a complaint - the GMC proceeded on a report in the News of the Screws once
what really? - a thousand ABers adnenoidally whine
yeah - sale of slimming pills without a consultation
and you remember Ebola - Dr Ryan did NOT alter an entry at London Airport - that was a lie spread by the then haad office of the PHLS and the alteration was obviously in someone elses handwriting
but the GMC still proceeded ( two week hearing ) and found fitness to practise impaired
what really? - a thousand ABers adnenoidally whine
[and yes the one spreading the lie was another doctor but was never proceeded against and anyway the GMC is about doctors and not hospitals or laboratories (but the doctors who work in them)]
and the GMC is a court under the courts act 1984 but when they tried to have the Beeb committed for contempt, the high court said - yes it is a court but it doesnt have the power to commit for contempt or refer to another court to commit for contempt
what really? - a thousand ABers adnenoidally whine
yeah really - AG ex p GMC v BBC no 2 3001.
The Beeb reported a GMC case whilst it was going on - [hey shades of Tarmy Robinson]. The GMC referred the Beeb for contempt to the High Court and the High Court Judge said: "so what, case dismissed"
er so that covers investigation
and so we come to the case
that is brought on whether there is a real possibility that the case if proven will mean the doctor's fitness to practise is impaired
what really? - a thousand ABers adenoidally whine
yup that is the criterion
Average time 2 y - I retired in 2012 and there are still cases outstanding from 2011, and yes we are almost at 2020.
thre are of course guidlines to sentencing - erm sanctions please. and guidelines as to how to use them - of course !
you start at the bottom - do we do nothing ( acquit), or do we warn (issue a letter) or do we impose condition and then of course ( which conditions)
or do we suspend ( Ebola got a suspension )
or erase ?
and during all this - money pours into the lawyers pockets and costs the complaining patient or his relative not a jot.
this readers is British JUSTICE !
let it flourish in ALL its glory !
that is brought on whether there is a real possibility that the case if proven will mean the doctor's fitness to practise is impaired
what really? - a thousand ABers adenoidally whine
yup that is the criterion
Average time 2 y - I retired in 2012 and there are still cases outstanding from 2011, and yes we are almost at 2020.
thre are of course guidlines to sentencing - erm sanctions please. and guidelines as to how to use them - of course !
you start at the bottom - do we do nothing ( acquit), or do we warn (issue a letter) or do we impose condition and then of course ( which conditions)
or do we suspend ( Ebola got a suspension )
or erase ?
and during all this - money pours into the lawyers pockets and costs the complaining patient or his relative not a jot.
this readers is British JUSTICE !
let it flourish in ALL its glory !
well spaff
Hi spaff !
doesnt
what dat den? - a thousand ABers adenoidally whining on a daily basis
mean they really DO understand something ( like I have posted again ) but they are just saying they dont understand because it is AB ....
In the muslim thread today - very questionable according to one deep thinker on AB - half of AB dont understand the difference between a cross and a crucifix
( er one has Christ naile onto it ....)
so the very rarified field of medical regulation
I mean even Sqad (who knows everything he does) has said he is unsure ....
Hi spaff !
doesnt
what dat den? - a thousand ABers adenoidally whining on a daily basis
mean they really DO understand something ( like I have posted again ) but they are just saying they dont understand because it is AB ....
In the muslim thread today - very questionable according to one deep thinker on AB - half of AB dont understand the difference between a cross and a crucifix
( er one has Christ naile onto it ....)
so the very rarified field of medical regulation
I mean even Sqad (who knows everything he does) has said he is unsure ....
I see the situation as this -
The doctor has asked the lady to remove her veil, the better to understand her, and she has complied.
Her husband has taken exception this and made a complaint.
The husband feels he is right to complain because, if he believes his religious observance means it is inappropriate for his wife's face to be seen by another man other than him, then he will take offence at another man facilitating that situation - regardless of the situation or reasons involved.
The husband has raised a formal complaint which the doctor's employers are duty bound to investigate.
That is where we are now.
An argument that the complaint is excessive can reasonably be offered - but that does not mean that it can be dismissed unheard.
All complaints must be investigated, however frivolous or vexatious they may appear to outsiders, because to dismiss them removes the right of the individual to be heard. If you dismiss this complaint as 'trivial', where do you go when someone accuses a doctor of sexual assault?
Yes, that's more serious, but if you remove the complaints procedure, you have nowhere to go. If you investigate the frivolous, you can investigate the serious, because you have an unbiased approach to complaints, which is essential.
My view is that the complaint will be investigated, the doctor will have no case to answer, and if the GMC has any sense, it will implement a rule that makes the pressence of a female chaperone mandatory for any patient wearing a veil. The chaperone can then remove the veil, and this nonsense will not re-occur.
The doctor has asked the lady to remove her veil, the better to understand her, and she has complied.
Her husband has taken exception this and made a complaint.
The husband feels he is right to complain because, if he believes his religious observance means it is inappropriate for his wife's face to be seen by another man other than him, then he will take offence at another man facilitating that situation - regardless of the situation or reasons involved.
The husband has raised a formal complaint which the doctor's employers are duty bound to investigate.
That is where we are now.
An argument that the complaint is excessive can reasonably be offered - but that does not mean that it can be dismissed unheard.
All complaints must be investigated, however frivolous or vexatious they may appear to outsiders, because to dismiss them removes the right of the individual to be heard. If you dismiss this complaint as 'trivial', where do you go when someone accuses a doctor of sexual assault?
Yes, that's more serious, but if you remove the complaints procedure, you have nowhere to go. If you investigate the frivolous, you can investigate the serious, because you have an unbiased approach to complaints, which is essential.
My view is that the complaint will be investigated, the doctor will have no case to answer, and if the GMC has any sense, it will implement a rule that makes the pressence of a female chaperone mandatory for any patient wearing a veil. The chaperone can then remove the veil, and this nonsense will not re-occur.
// Peter Pedant ; Can you remove your key-board, because I don't understand a word of what you are typing?//
yes of course I can you dear short sighted old thing
There is this thing called the GMC and it has absolutely nothing to do with asking a mother to remove her yashmak so a doctor can hear
so no wonder you cant understand it - it doesnt make any sense !
( and putting your glasses back on or replugging your keyboard will not make the situation or the petition logical )
Hey did you hear that MP say - if you watch Titanic a hundred times, it sinks every time in the end ......
// Can you remove your key-board, because I don't understand a word of what you are typing?//
because if I DO remove my keyboard - then you WILL understand the words I type
hey good one old boy - if it makes sense to you .....
yes of course I can you dear short sighted old thing
There is this thing called the GMC and it has absolutely nothing to do with asking a mother to remove her yashmak so a doctor can hear
so no wonder you cant understand it - it doesnt make any sense !
( and putting your glasses back on or replugging your keyboard will not make the situation or the petition logical )
Hey did you hear that MP say - if you watch Titanic a hundred times, it sinks every time in the end ......
// Can you remove your key-board, because I don't understand a word of what you are typing?//
because if I DO remove my keyboard - then you WILL understand the words I type
hey good one old boy - if it makes sense to you .....
I think that a reasonable comment on EACH sentence in Andies piece can be answered with
No that is not true .... yes every one !
[hey in the Use of EnglishExam 1970 a question was
"how does a refrigerator work?"
and The Board discussed one essay which was an ace of clarity and logic. Something to behold and adore. - print it and show the candidates how a question should be answered. One english examiner exclaimed that she never knew a firdge worked like that
and the engineer on the examining board commented, "a fridge doesnt work like that"
true story apparently
just a leedol flavvvver:
The doctor has asked the lady to remove her veil, the better to understand her, and she has complied.
we dont know - the dad has alleged that it was wrong - as in er a complaint
and the doctor has said it was for communication.
//The husband has raised a formal complaint//
to whom?
he has complained to the employer ( but not as fas as I can see the GMC. I am not sure if the empoloyer has to pass the fact there is a complaint to the GMC - or it has to investigate and then pass it on once completed. I actually dont know if they have discretion ( as in this was such a load of crock of shup that we didnt send it )
An argument that the complaint is excessive can reasonably be offered - but that does not mean that it can be dismissed unheard.
if an argument is offered, then it counts as heard (unless they really put everything in an envelop in a drawer and lock it) and so if any argument is accepted or rejected - - there has to have been a hearing ....
oh a formal hearing with witnesses:
If I complained to my surgery that a certain Mr Andie Hiughes had vaccinated my child with yellow fever
they wouldnt have a hearing - they would just tell me they had no registered practitioner in the surgery called Andie Hughes and they didnt carry yellow fever vax.
All complaints must be investigated, however frivolous or vexatious they may appear to outsiders,
Hahaha oh good one
this was enshrined in law - 2002 Care Act at the GMC's request and it was immediately uniundated with complaints along the lines of Andie Hughes vaccinated....
so they (GMC) divided it into stream 1 (piffle but must be processed) and stream 2 complaints (things which may actually mean something).
and then they (GMC) entered into the fol-de-rol about what is a complaint and what is an investigation
so this is where we are now
there is no formal complaint to the GMC
there has been no investiation as yet by anyone
see headline - he has not been fired
and yet there is a public petition against all three
with upwards of 10 000 signatures - including my own !
how very AB - AB craziness spills out onto the street .....
No that is not true .... yes every one !
[hey in the Use of EnglishExam 1970 a question was
"how does a refrigerator work?"
and The Board discussed one essay which was an ace of clarity and logic. Something to behold and adore. - print it and show the candidates how a question should be answered. One english examiner exclaimed that she never knew a firdge worked like that
and the engineer on the examining board commented, "a fridge doesnt work like that"
true story apparently
just a leedol flavvvver:
The doctor has asked the lady to remove her veil, the better to understand her, and she has complied.
we dont know - the dad has alleged that it was wrong - as in er a complaint
and the doctor has said it was for communication.
//The husband has raised a formal complaint//
to whom?
he has complained to the employer ( but not as fas as I can see the GMC. I am not sure if the empoloyer has to pass the fact there is a complaint to the GMC - or it has to investigate and then pass it on once completed. I actually dont know if they have discretion ( as in this was such a load of crock of shup that we didnt send it )
An argument that the complaint is excessive can reasonably be offered - but that does not mean that it can be dismissed unheard.
if an argument is offered, then it counts as heard (unless they really put everything in an envelop in a drawer and lock it) and so if any argument is accepted or rejected - - there has to have been a hearing ....
oh a formal hearing with witnesses:
If I complained to my surgery that a certain Mr Andie Hiughes had vaccinated my child with yellow fever
they wouldnt have a hearing - they would just tell me they had no registered practitioner in the surgery called Andie Hughes and they didnt carry yellow fever vax.
All complaints must be investigated, however frivolous or vexatious they may appear to outsiders,
Hahaha oh good one
this was enshrined in law - 2002 Care Act at the GMC's request and it was immediately uniundated with complaints along the lines of Andie Hughes vaccinated....
so they (GMC) divided it into stream 1 (piffle but must be processed) and stream 2 complaints (things which may actually mean something).
and then they (GMC) entered into the fol-de-rol about what is a complaint and what is an investigation
so this is where we are now
there is no formal complaint to the GMC
there has been no investiation as yet by anyone
see headline - he has not been fired
and yet there is a public petition against all three
with upwards of 10 000 signatures - including my own !
how very AB - AB craziness spills out onto the street .....
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
News37 mins ago
ChatterBank85 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles145 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.