ChatterBank2 mins ago
What Questions Would You Like David Behan (Present Cqc Head) To Be Asked At The Commons Health Select Committee ?
One of the 3 officials present at the meeting where the report was allegedly said to be deleted - Ms Anna Jefferson, has denied that she said that this report could never be in the public domain or subject to a FOI question. She also said and i quote from an article from Sky news Website:
"She claimed she pushed for proper external scrutiny of the CQC's actions regarding Morecambe Bay "several times", the last time on July 17, 2012, during a meeting where the CQC's current chief executive David Behan was present."
So did Mr Behan know about this and why did he not make this fact known when this all came to light.....or is Ms Jefferson making some futile attempt to cover her backside?
What other questions do you think should be asked at this commission?
"She claimed she pushed for proper external scrutiny of the CQC's actions regarding Morecambe Bay "several times", the last time on July 17, 2012, during a meeting where the CQC's current chief executive David Behan was present."
So did Mr Behan know about this and why did he not make this fact known when this all came to light.....or is Ms Jefferson making some futile attempt to cover her backside?
What other questions do you think should be asked at this commission?
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by barney15c. 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.
I am starting to have a little sympathy for David Behan.
He was appointed last year. The original flawed CQC report into Morecombe Bay was done before he took charge. He has presented himself for a media grilling and endured two consecutive Paxman interogations. Unlike Ministers and Ex-Ministers who have shirk away.
The internal report which criticised the original CQC inspection was attempted to be suppressed by Anne Jefferson. Did she take any part in the flawed report which gave Morecombe Bay a clean bill of health? I do not believe her motive from suppressing the internal report was to get a new one done by the CQC.
He was appointed last year. The original flawed CQC report into Morecombe Bay was done before he took charge. He has presented himself for a media grilling and endured two consecutive Paxman interogations. Unlike Ministers and Ex-Ministers who have shirk away.
The internal report which criticised the original CQC inspection was attempted to be suppressed by Anne Jefferson. Did she take any part in the flawed report which gave Morecombe Bay a clean bill of health? I do not believe her motive from suppressing the internal report was to get a new one done by the CQC.
Behan and Prior will be interviewed by Parliament next week, but they are scapegoats. Behan took over from Bower last year and Prior only started in post at the start of this year.
Missing next week from Patlament's scrutiny is the main culprit, Cynthia Bower. She was Chief Executive of the CQC when the mistakes and cover ups took place, along with Finney and Jefferson.
It should be them answering difficult questions, not the people brought in to sort out her mess.
Footnote: Finney has been sacked by her new employer since February, the internet registry firm Nominet. With immediate effect.
Missing next week from Patlament's scrutiny is the main culprit, Cynthia Bower. She was Chief Executive of the CQC when the mistakes and cover ups took place, along with Finney and Jefferson.
It should be them answering difficult questions, not the people brought in to sort out her mess.
Footnote: Finney has been sacked by her new employer since February, the internet registry firm Nominet. With immediate effect.
Svejk. I am normally in agreement with everything you say but on this issue we part I'm afraid.
Behan has been on every serious radio and TV program for the last week. Only after all that time did he do what he should have done in the first place, and release the names. There have been grave errors committed in Cumbria and he made the situation worse by faffing about. He took completely duff advice from his lawyers and I expect they are just about to send their bill in to be paid. He could have saved a considerable sum by picking up the phone and calling the correct person in the department that deals with Data Protection. Any fool could have seen that these names were public officials, doing a publicly funded job, and no issue of Data Protection should have arisen.
Instead he had to be hounded by Paxo, amongst others, until he did what he should have done in the first place. This man appears to amiable enough but he has all the appearance of a rabbit caught in the headlights.
We used to be so proud of our NHS but it appears to be going down the pan now. How many other hospitals are going to be exposed ? People have died for Gods sake...how many more will have to suffer the same fate before these stuffed shirts get off these bloody arses and start earning the huge sums of money that WE are paying them ?
Sorry if this sounds a tad angry but if I was the parents of these babies that have died, I would probably have stopped talking and come out shooting a long time ago.
Behan has been on every serious radio and TV program for the last week. Only after all that time did he do what he should have done in the first place, and release the names. There have been grave errors committed in Cumbria and he made the situation worse by faffing about. He took completely duff advice from his lawyers and I expect they are just about to send their bill in to be paid. He could have saved a considerable sum by picking up the phone and calling the correct person in the department that deals with Data Protection. Any fool could have seen that these names were public officials, doing a publicly funded job, and no issue of Data Protection should have arisen.
Instead he had to be hounded by Paxo, amongst others, until he did what he should have done in the first place. This man appears to amiable enough but he has all the appearance of a rabbit caught in the headlights.
We used to be so proud of our NHS but it appears to be going down the pan now. How many other hospitals are going to be exposed ? People have died for Gods sake...how many more will have to suffer the same fate before these stuffed shirts get off these bloody arses and start earning the huge sums of money that WE are paying them ?
Sorry if this sounds a tad angry but if I was the parents of these babies that have died, I would probably have stopped talking and come out shooting a long time ago.
I hope so Svejk. But it doesn't look too good for the future does it ? These officials in the CQC are paid very good salaries, as are the big guns involved in running our health organisations, and it doesn't seem too much to expect that when people go in to Hospital they should expect to get treated properly. As it stands at the moment, there will be scandal after scandal and more senior men and women will subjected to a grilling by Humphries and Paxo. Thank God for the BBC !
I dont think the Beeb coverage post release has been that good.
Interviewers differ and they seem not to have read the report.
We know the meeting took place (!)
and the four people who were there
No minutes were kept and that apparently was commonplace for CQC (!)
One person kept contemporaneous record - and this record is clear.
A later part of the record was corroborated and Grant Thornton then conclude the whole record is accurate.
Another operative agrees he was asked by Mr J if she should destroy the report and he said no.
Someone agrees that the 'it cant be part of an FOI' WAS said.
Sin Bowers s inital denial was : ' I would not have said that because it would not be authorised'
later on it was no I am sure I did not say that.
One of the interviews with Mr G - Grant Thornton cant agree with Mr G what was said at the INTERVIEW let alone what was said nine months previously - Grant thornton say - we are taking our record as true and have rejected the re writing suggested.....
No one can explain why, if the report was not to be deleted but rewritten, erm why it never was, and why it disappears below the radar for ever more.
Interviewers differ and they seem not to have read the report.
We know the meeting took place (!)
and the four people who were there
No minutes were kept and that apparently was commonplace for CQC (!)
One person kept contemporaneous record - and this record is clear.
A later part of the record was corroborated and Grant Thornton then conclude the whole record is accurate.
Another operative agrees he was asked by Mr J if she should destroy the report and he said no.
Someone agrees that the 'it cant be part of an FOI' WAS said.
Sin Bowers s inital denial was : ' I would not have said that because it would not be authorised'
later on it was no I am sure I did not say that.
One of the interviews with Mr G - Grant Thornton cant agree with Mr G what was said at the INTERVIEW let alone what was said nine months previously - Grant thornton say - we are taking our record as true and have rejected the re writing suggested.....
No one can explain why, if the report was not to be deleted but rewritten, erm why it never was, and why it disappears below the radar for ever more.
1 to 10 of 10
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.