Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The fast fashion retailer is not purchasing the stores or taking on its staff. View the full article
    • Who is the retailer?   What was the item? Where was it sent from and where was it sent to? How did you pay?
    • I purchased an item costing approximately £3000 from an online retailer. The item was sent via Royal Mail Special Delivery. The item never arrived. Tracking shows as delivered with a signiture and printed name which is not mine. I informed the retailer and they in turn informed Royal Mail who started an investigation. After the investaigation Royal Mail said the item was delivered to a house number opposite me and that I should check with them. I checked and nothing had been received by that neighbour. After this the reailer initiated a claim with Royal Mail. It has been 5 days since then and I have not heard back from the retailer. My question is: Legally, do I really need to wait for the Royal Mail claim? As far as I see it I have a contract with the retialer. I have paid them money and they have agreed to provide me with goods. I have paid my money but not recieved the goods. The Royal Mail aspect is nothing to do with me and not my problem. Am I correct in this thinking?   If so, what should I do?
    • Hello to all on this wonderful forum! I have just joined and hope to be able to share my experiances and knowledge with you all whilst also benefitting from others.
    • The top ranking highlights China's growing influence on the word economic stage. View the full article
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies

Audio-recording your consultations with NHS doctors


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 593 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

GP Arun Kumar told a patient in consultation who said she felt suicidal:

 

"You can go and jolly well do it now"…and…"if you don’t know how to do it, it’s on the internet how to do it."

 

It has to be doubted whether matter case would ever have reached the MPTS, if they patient hadn't covertly recorded the consultation – after all the doctor didn't record what he said in the medical notes. But it did, and the recorded evidence was clearly crucial.

 

Nevertheless, in my view, the panel leaned over backwards to make excuses for the GP – who couldn't be bothered to attend the hearing – and dealt out a penalty of risible proportions.

.

Se what you think from the full case report posted at the MPTS website a couple of days ago:-

 

http://www.mpts-uk.org/static/documents/content/Arun_Kumar_Singhal.pdf

 

Hello Nolegion. That's a very interesting disciplinary hearing report. As I read towards the end of the document, I had visions of the doctor being let off with a slap on the wrist but instead he got suspended. That's very encouraging for those who wish to provide audio evidence to such hearings.

 

Nice link. I would encourage other readers to click it.

 

I suspect there may a great many more such cases because for some patients with mental health problems such mistreatment during consultations is all too common.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Sorry – it's just that someone just message me and asked me to open this thread because they wanted to add some information.

Hello shallowthought9 and welcome to this thread. For what it is worth I think that in the light of the clearly disgraceful way your (former)  behaved it is very generous of you to contribute to a thr

Well, there's a funny ol' thing. The Haringey GP practice's 'recording devices' text (post #873) vanished from its website around 9.00am today.

 

 

I think they are reading your thread Nolegion. You've got them on the run.

 

 

****

With reference to the Dr Singhal case.

 

It must be extremely difficult to constantly deal with patients with mental health issues, perhaps volatile and abusive, day on day.

 

Having said that I consider Dr Singhal's punishment insufficient on two points.

 

First that he not only failed to record in the patient's notes what he had said, ('you should go and jolly well do it [commit suicide] now'), but actually lied about what she had said to him ('I will kill you'). This provides an insight into his character and makes me doubt his integrity.

 

Secondly, his failing to turn up at the hearing is, for me, telling and shows contempt for the patient and the hearing process and an unwillingness to accept wrong-doing. The panel did not feel they needed to take his absence into consideration when reaching their conclusion.

 

Perhaps he is unlikely to repeat this particular kind of offence because now, always lurking in the back of his mind, will be the possibility that he is being recorded.

 

I cannot figure out the MPTS. They seem to be completely inconsistent in their decision making. I often wonder if the punishment (if indeed there is one) is reached using Rock-Paper-Scissors.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think they are reading your thread Nolegion. You've got them on the run.

 

 

****

With reference to the Dr Singhal case.

 

It must be extremely difficult to constantly deal with patients with mental health issues, perhaps volatile and abusive, day on day.

 

Having said that I consider Dr Singhal's punishment insufficient on two points.

 

First that he not only failed to record in the patient's notes what he had said, ('you should go and jolly well do it [commit suicide] now'), but actually lied about what she had said to him ('I will kill you'). This provides an insight into his character and makes me doubt his integrity.

 

Secondly, his failing to turn up at the hearing is, for me, telling and shows contempt for the patient and the hearing process and an unwillingness to accept wrong-doing. The panel did not feel they needed to take his absence into consideration when reaching their conclusion.

 

Perhaps he is unlikely to repeat this particular kind of offence because now, always lurking in the back of his mind, will be the possibility that he is being recorded.

 

I cannot figure out the MPTS. They seem to be completely inconsistent in their decision making. I often wonder if the punishment (if indeed there is one) is reached using Rock-Paper-Scissors.

 

 

 

 

GOOD AFTERNOON sali

 

just to lighten the day I love the acronym MPTS it really is poetic justice

Link to post
Share on other sites

Amongst other things, the Singhal case is yet another illustration of the MPTS determinedly construing facts to favour the doctor concerned, in my view.

 

I have lost count of the number of times I have read in the reports that it has been decided that while a medical record was indeed 'misleading', it was not actually 'dishonest'.

 

Dishonesty carries a higher tariff in the GMC's "indicative sanctions guide", you see; so, even if you don't bother to turn up (so you could e.g. be cross-examined about your entries in the notes), it seems that the panel is ready to find excuses for you.

 

Still, the point that the case also illustrates the fact that listening to recorded evidence in GMC cases is becoming commonplace, is also true and welcome. There is no report of the doctor trying to claim inadmissibility of evidence, here; and I think that admissibility in these circumstances can now, since the close of the Mao-Aweys case at least, be fairly termed 'established law'. They certainly think it's a 'done deal' here, from across the Pond - see below.

……………………………………………….

 

Delighted to find another legally-based U.S. article directly on our subject now posted online. It includes further commentary from Professor G. Elwyn, viz:-

 

(The Welsh on the Wild West)

 

" Recording lawful in many states

A recording where the physician and the patient consent to be recorded is lawful. But even a secret recording made by a patient is lawful in many states because in many of them, only one party needs to consent, says Fisher.

 

However, the law, ethics and policy surrounding patient recordings are unsettled and unclear in the United States. “It’s a wild west out there,” says Elwyn. In contrast, the United Kingdom’s General Medical Council, the body that registers physicians to practice in that country, has accepted that patients have the right to record an encounter and put it into a court of law. Patients don’t need to obtain a physician’s consent because it’s seen as patient note-taking but the physician does need the patient’s consent to record.

 

The patient’s power and voice is becoming increasingly important. It’s unhelpful to fight it,” says Elwyn." (emphasis mine)

 

And:-

 

(My Turn's Manoeuvre in Massachusetts )

" If you don’t want to be recorded and ask not to be, remain professional even after the smartphone is turned off because the patient may be recording you anyway with a second device. Besides being the right thing to do, this will reduce the risk of being accused of defamation, infliction of emotional distress or other violations of the law." (again, empsasis mine)

 

(Extracts from an article by Marla Durben Hirsch. pp 5 & 6:

https://store.decisionhealth.com/storePdf/MCA_7-21-14_web.pdf)

Link to post
Share on other sites
With reference to the Dr Singhal case.

 

It must be extremely difficult to constantly deal with patients with mental health issues, perhaps volatile and abusive, day on day.

 

Having said that I consider Dr Singhal's punishment insufficient on two points.

 

Hello Sali. When I read the Dr Singhal report from Nolegion's link I expected him to get away with it. I have several GMC/MPTS tribunal reports in which guilt is proved but there is nothing done about it.

 

The 3 month suspension handed down in this case is not enough but I am glad for small mercies and am pleased that they did anything at all! I suspect my modest expectations have been shaped by the failed tribunals in the past.

 

My Turn

Link to post
Share on other sites
(My Turn's Manoeuvre in Massachusetts )

 

" If you don’t want to be recorded and ask not to be, remain professional even after the smartphone is turned off because the patient may be recording you anyway with a second device. Besides being the right thing to do, this will reduce the risk of being accused of defamation, infliction of emotional distress or other violations of the law." (again, empsasis mine)

 

(Extracts from an article by Marla Durben Hirsch. pp 5 & 6:

https://store.decisionhealth.com/storePdf/MCA_7-21-14_web.pdf)

 

The example the report gives of a patient in Virginia being vilified and manipulated by his doctors is particularly shocking!!! From afar, it will be interesting to see the outcome of the million trial due in December. I see there have been some other comments about this disgraceful incident:

 

http://jonathanturley.org/2014/04/25/virginia-doctors-sued-after-patients-cellphone-records-them-mocking-his-unconscious-body/

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello Sali. When I read the Dr Singhal report from Nolegion's link I expected him to get away with it. I have several GMC/MPTS tribunal reports in which guilt is proved but there is nothing done about it.

 

The 3 month suspension handed down in this case is not enough but I am glad for small mercies and am pleased that they did anything at all! I suspect my modest expectations have been shaped by the failed tribunals in the past.

 

My Turn

 

Yes, I understand how you feel.

 

The MPTS is just unpredictable. They may strike from the register one doctor who I personally feel is not a danger to his/her patients, yet another, like Dr Singhal, who showed himself to be both cunning and untrustworthy by omitting what he said to the patient and, worse still, adding a complete lie, gets off with a short suspension. They are as mad as a box of frogs and I have no confidence in them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the subject of this thread and the fact that, since I started it, two close relatives have entered high-dependency care homes, I hope can be forgiven for wanting to keep a close eye on the inadequacies of the CQC as regards the use of overt and covert recording in care homes and similar.

 

The CQC Board reviewed the efforts of staff to frame "guidance" on this last month (see posts #848 #850 & #860). I'm glad to say they threw that first-time attempt out. It was simply so bland and non-committal it said nothing at all.

 

The second attempt was made available online last Friday, and I have been fighting for the time to digest it all and respond.

 

I discover it is absolutely disgraceful (revised) draft documentation.

 

In terms of 'guidance', it remains an incoherent heap of junk, but that that is no longer the central problem with it. It includes a proposal that is, in my oh-so-humble, actually illegal – and certainly potentially of grave consequence for the safety of care home residents such as my relatives.

 

It suggests to care home owners that they may interfere with or remove recording devices installed by care home residents (or by e.g. relatives lawfully acting on such a resident's behalf) even when such devices – whether intended to record overtly or covertly – are found in the individual private bedrooms of residents. And that they may do so on the grounds of "staff privacy".

 

This is utterly misconceived and could prove, literally, lethal. I give those who take the trouble to follow a thread like this the credit of assuming they do not need someone like me to spell out why.

 

What matters is time. I have pitched in an anguished reaction to the CQC, and I understand some friends\ former colleagues are attempting to do something on the heels of that.

 

But the Board meeting starts at 9.00am tomorrow.

 

Even now it's still not too late to say something though, and here's an easy route (CQC 'general enquiry' form):-

 

http://www.cqc.org.uk/content/contact-us-using-our-online-form

 

The particular evils to be aimed at are buried in paragraphs 4.6 to 4.9 of this Board paper presented for approval tomorrow:-

 

http://www.cqc.org.uk/sites/default/files/CM111408_Item_8_Information_for_the_public_on_surveillance_Appen_1.pdf

 

I will not suggest wording to people, but even if you just indicate you have become aware of this particular proposal and think it is dangerous\catastrophic\whatever, it can only help.

 

I referred to this thread in my response to the CQC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Care home surveillance by resident\relatives

 

Many thanks to those who contacted me to say they already had protested to the CQC about this, or that they were now going to. I have to confess I nearly blew some gaskets when I saw the text below:-

 

Extract from DRAFT CQC Board papers 19 11 2014:-

 

" Contractual and legal issues

 

4.6.When deciding whether to use a camera or any sort of recording device in a care setting you should consider the policies that the provider may have in place.These may limit the use of recording devices to protect the privacy of staff, other people using the service or visitors. For example, some hospitals request you don’t take photographs on wards.

 

4.7. If you decide to use a camera or audio recording device yourself, you should consider whether this could put you in breach of a policy and have implications for your care or the care of your loved one. For example, will staff refuse to treat someone if there is an insistence that they are filmed or recorded doing so?

 

4.8. The provider could remove a hidden device that they find. However, they would be committing an offence if they deliberately destroyed or damaged the camera or refused to return it to you. A provider may feel obliged to remove a camera,especially one in a shared area if they consider that it is an intrusion upon the privacy of service users, staff or visitors."

 

This is completely wrong in law (and practice), and it is frankly disgraceful that such wording should still be in draft documentation awaiting final approval last Wednesday. All too obviously, in my assessment, the staff at CQC are still trying to placate 'service providers' at the expense of clear statements of law for the benefit of 'service users'.

 

Fortunately, Board members, albeit via mammoth understatement (e.g. "… We slightly duck the issue of whether it is legal…"), did, eventually, spot this. So, despite the 'green-light-for-spying- on-care-homes' type headlines now published (e.g:-

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2841115/Families-given-official-green-light-use-CCTV-care-homes-check-staff-abusing-elderly-relatives.html),

 

the draft documentation was NOT in fact approved as it stands last week. Before any such publication the Board insisted that these very legal issues have got to be explained properly, and no publication is now expected until after Christmas.

 

Right at the end of the discussion, one particular non-executive director (Michael Mire) landed some commentary which I truly hope has strong and lasting effect. In my view, he happens to be entirely right, both legally and practically.

 

Stripping out the caveats, he said:-

 

" ' Will staff refuse to treat so somebody…?' I think we should say in the provider paper…that if a resident or relatives have installed some sort of covert surveillance it is because they are worried about the care they are getting…and this is a totally legitimate thing to do…

 

We don't actually give to the provider any guidance on what to do if one of the residents or relatives install covert surveillance, but I think in that way we can take a more positive stance…

 

This is because a relative or resident is worried about their care and it would be completely illegal if you withdrew or restricted care if you found that someone was using covert surveillance…

 

I think that is a very important part of the advice we should be giving to providers, and it can position us…on the patients' side, which is the point that colleagues are making – I mean residents' side or users' side – because that's the place we want to be. "

 

Well said, Mr Mire.

 

Here's the link I forgot first time of posting:-

 

 

The surveillance discussion runs roughly 2:44 to 3:13.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While delay may be preferable to error, this committtee seem to have taken faffing to a whole new level. Is it legal, will we be sued, maybe we should get somebody else to write the guidance and yada yada yada.

 

You are right nolegion, they seem to be only interested in not upsetting the providers and covering their own backs.

 

I would like to see the CQC making it crystal clear that it is not illegal to covertly record in this country and that service providers cannot over-ride this right just because they have included it in their policy document.

 

We should also have assurance that the CQC will act if a patient/resident/relative is intimidated by a service provider because covert recording is suspected or discovered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn't agree with you more, Sali.

 

For anyone else viewing, the setback the CQC staff suffered (again) in getting their documentation rubber-stamped last week at least provides a little more time to bung in notes of protest, and make it clear to the faffing CQC that their next move will still be taken under extensive close scrutiny.

 

I gave CQC contact details earlier. For tweeters, the CQC have started their own hashtag on the subject: #CQCcameras.

 

Contributions can be viewed online here (I think):-

 

https://twitter.com/hashtag/cqccameras?f=realtime&src=hash

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the ability to attach documents to posts is an excellent facility in any forum.

 

However, here, perhaps because of the membership and login requirement to gain sight of such, relatively few (compared with e.g. general 'viewing' figures) gain much, if any, readership - while links are open to all viewers

 

Nothing daunted, I attach one of the efforts I helped compile with some urgency when the CQC finally made public the detail of its (disgraceful) proposed 'guidance' re cameras in care homes public last month (on 14 11 14, in fact). In haste or otherwise, I still think it reads OK.

 

I think it matters a great deal that the CQC should be kept aware that it has not 'got away with it' and will be proceeding under intense continuing scrutiny.

 

Their staff tried to get approval for the idea that the owner of, for instance, the care home mentioned in the article linked below, could have removed the camera installed in the resident's bedroom (by her family) on the grounds of 'staff privacy':-

 

"Derek Rigby’s offences only came to light after the resident’s daughter hid a camera in her mother’s room at Colliers Croft Care Home..."

 

http://www.sthelensstar.co.uk/news/11629233.Abuse_case_raises_questions_over_CCTV_in_care_homes/

Link to post
Share on other sites

MPS recording 'survey' (reported yesterday 01 12 14)

 

Oh dear. Still a very long way to go:

 

" …almost three quarters (73%) believe they have a right to decline a patient’s request to record a consultation."

 

"…MPS reminds doctors that a patient does not require their permission to record a consultation."

……………………………………………………………………………………………………..

 

Out of about 500 doctors surveyed, about 100 had 'experience' of patients recording – and about 40 of those only found out they had been recorded later (rather than at the time of consultation).

 

Well, I would say that over the time this thread has been running I have encountered 1 overt recorder for every 20 private recorders - and they stay 'private' recorders because they think that doctors will behave badly if told about it - at the time or later.

 

So the 60 patients who declared that they were recording might correspond with, say about 1200 patients who were resolutely recording covertly. Accordingly, I suggest a lot of the doctors surveyed were recorded (and continue to be recorded) but they still don't know it.

 

Of course, for some, the first time they know about it may just be from the GMC notifying them that they are under investigation.

 

I also suggest that when doctors bleat that they 'want more guidance', they are really saying they don't like what they are already being told. They hate the idea of the of the doctor-patient 'power gradient' being adjusted by the power of recorders in patients' pockets, and they want someone to say it is OK to try 'ban' the practice. It isn't. It's both futile and counter-productive.

 

The way to avoid that letter from the GMC is to welcome overt recording, banish arrogant medical behaviour, and consult better.

 

Here's the MPS' link:

 

http://www.medicalprotection.org/uk/press-releases/91%25-of-doctors-want-more-guidance-on-patient's-recording-consultations-MPS-survey-reveals

 

Did the MPS time this to coincide with the CQC's machinations, or is the MPS in fact unaware that the CQC guidance is intended to cover all health sectors? Odd that no reference is made to an issue so very topical.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

 

I wonder when we will get to learn the results of the survey Prof. Elwyn and his colleagues at the Dartmouth Institute conducted a few months ago which covered both clinicians and patients.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My second ever tweet was to thank a friend and former colleague for giving a credit to this thread at the CQC's hashtag: #CQCcameras.

 

My third ever tweet was banned from that hashtag by the CQC. Sweet.

 

This is what it said:-

 

" CQC draft neglects both NICE guidance pro recording by pts of their treatment & GMC rules against recording by drs of their pts "

 

LOL & hang me for treason! Of all the officious poltroonery…

Link to post
Share on other sites
MPS recording 'survey' (reported yesterday 01 12 14)

" …almost three quarters (73%) believe they have a right to decline a patient’s request to record a consultation."

"…MPS reminds doctors that a patient does not require their permission to record a consultation."

……………………………………………………………………………………………………..

 

Out of about 500 doctors surveyed, about 100 had 'experience' of patients recording – and about 40 of those only found out they had been recorded later (rather than at the time of consultation).

 

Here's the MPS' link:

http://www.medicalprotection.org/uk/press-releases/91%25-of-doctors-want-more-guidance-on-patient's-recording-consultations-MPS-survey-reveals

 

 

 

Hi Nolegion. That's an interesting link. Although the article itself is very brief, its tone shows a growing acceptance of the inevitability of recording medical consultations. Hooray for that!

Link to post
Share on other sites
MPS recording 'survey' (reported yesterday 01 12 14)

 

Oh dear. Still a very long way to go:

 

" …almost three quarters (73%) believe they have a right to decline a patient’s request to record a consultation."

 

"…MPS reminds doctors that a patient does not require their permission to record a consultation."

……………………………………………………………………………………………………..

 

Out of about 500 doctors surveyed, about 100 had 'experience' of patients recording – and about 40 of those only found out they had been recorded later (rather than at the time of consultation).

 

Well, I would say that over the time this thread has been running I have encountered 1 overt recorder for every 20 private recorders - and they stay 'private' recorders because they think that doctors will behave badly if told about it - at the time or later.

 

So the 60 patients who declared that they were recording might correspond with, say about 1200 patients who were resolutely recording covertly. Accordingly, I suggest a lot of the doctors surveyed were recorded (and continue to be recorded) but they still don't know it.

 

Of course, for some, the first time they know about it may just be from the GMC notifying them that they are under investigation.

 

I also suggest that when doctors bleat that they 'want more guidance', they are really saying they don't like what they are already being told. They hate the idea of the of the doctor-patient 'power gradient' being adjusted by the power of recorders in patients' pockets, and they want someone to say it is OK to try 'ban' the practice. It isn't. It's both futile and counter-productive.

 

The way to avoid that letter from the GMC is to welcome overt recording, banish arrogant medical behaviour, and consult better.

 

Here's the MPS' link:

 

http://www.medicalprotection.org/uk/press-releases/91%25-of-doctors-want-more-guidance-on-patient's-recording-consultations-MPS-survey-reveals

 

Did the MPS time this to coincide with the CQC's machinations, or is the MPS in fact unaware that the CQC guidance is intended to cover all health sectors? Odd that no reference is made to an issue so very topical.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

 

I wonder when we will get to learn the results of the survey Prof. Elwyn and his colleagues at the Dartmouth Institute conducted a few months ago which covered both clinicians and patients.

 

 

GOOD MORNING nolegion

I think that the 40 out of 100 patients that record covertly is quite low, patients have an idea their doctor//consultant/nurse would

not be happy to allow recordings. I never asked permission, unfortunately they know now that I have been recording for quite some time.

it is my insurance.

 

 

nolegion its hilarious that your tweet was banned using that hashtag by the C,Q.C's it shows they are living in their own little bubble and that they consider we the general public are just a nuisance.

 

 

ps. is poltroonery an actual word, if not WHY NOT.?

Edited by honeybee13
Possible defamation.
Link to post
Share on other sites
GOOD MORNING nolegion

I think that the 40 out of 100 patients that record covertly is quite low, patients have an idea their doctor//consultant/nurse would

not be happy to allow recordings. I never asked permission, unfortunately they know now that I have been recording for quite some time.

it is my insurance against the blatant lies told by all n.h.s staff including managers and legal staff employed by the n.h.s.

 

 

nolegion its hilarious that your tweet was banned using that hashtag by the C,Q.C's it shows they are living in their own little bubble and that they consider we the general public are just a nuisance.

 

 

ps. is poltroonery an actual word, if not WHY NOT.?

 

I'm going to ask you politely to retract that statement.

My views are my own and are not representative of any organisation. if you've found my post helpful please click on the star below.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From Collins dictionary online.

 

poltroonery (pɒlˈtruːnərɪ)

 

Definitions

 

noun

 

 

  • (literary) cowardice

Can we keep things civil please even if we have differing opinions.

 

 

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
From Collins dictionary online.

 

poltroonery (pɒlˈtruːnərɪ)

 

Definitions

 

noun

 

 

 

  • (literary) cowardice

 

Can we keep things civil please even if we have differing opinions.

 

 

 

HB

 

 

GOOD MORNING honey bee

thanks for the definition of poltroonery, surely you realise we or at least I was trying to be witty and no offence was intended and hope none was taken

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shirl1. I don't think it is the word poltroonery that has offended ThinkaboutIt, but that you accused NHS staff and managers of lying in your original post (line removed by ?).

 

We've had whistleblowers - doctors, nurses, managers - all admitting that they or those working alongside of them have lied and covered up mistakes and failures. Some people have even been prosecuted. It happens. Everywhere. In all professions. We know it. Is it, Thinkaboutit, a fact that you do not want to hear or to be repeated about the NHS, or is it the sweeping statement that you dislike?

 

Shirl1 and all of us reading this thread know that she is not tarring everyone with the same brush. Betrayal by those you trust - in this case the professionals within the NHS - provokes strong reactions. It's normal.

 

Please do not let this turn into a forum where everyone is looking to find offence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sali / Shirli or anyone else for that matter,

 

I certainly wasn't offended by what was written but felt it only right to challenge it. If I or another poster were to make a similar statement about any other group of people such as patients / complainants on here then I'd expect to be challenged too. To broad brush and say 'all NHS staff / patients / claimants etc are represented by the minority who don't meet the standards expected is wrong.

 

I understand completely how such a breach in trust can affect you, I learnt for myself but still do not an will not accept that all people in a group are corrupt. We are, perhaps, the voice of the few who are willing to openly discuss their experiences of the NHS from all angles and as such we owe it to each other and those who come across what we write to be respectful towards each other.

My views are my own and are not representative of any organisation. if you've found my post helpful please click on the star below.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that in the overwhelming majority of complaints against the NHS the deep and abiding bitterness felt by patients as to how they or their loved ones have been treated is doubly justified. First by the injury or loss itself, and then by the insult of the delay, deny & defend 'complaints system' – which suits all too many clinicians, and their managers, all too well.

…………………………………………………………………………………….

 

" RYNES"

 

- or European-law fiasco-alert. A decision of the "Court of Justice of the European Union" is scheduled to be handed down tomorrow (11th December) and it goes under the name 'Rynes' – the householder party involved.

 

Although the translation is a little clumsy, here's a version of the facts (reaching back to 2007) arising in the Czech Republic:-

 

"The facts

 

Mr. Rynes, the journalist, installed the camera on his own house in order to secure his house against the violent incidents that happened several times in 2007 when the stones were thrown into his windows. The camera system was installed by the professional company and does not comprise the monitor. The record is available only for the purpose of the family and not to stream to third parties.

 

According to the Czech case law, the record could be used in the criminal proceedings as an evidence. In October 2007 the offender was arrested thanks to the camera record.

 

The offender made a complaint to the Office for personal data protection (Úřad pro ochranu osobních údajů) that the the cctv breaches Act No. 101/2000 Coll., the Personal Data Protection Act according to the Art. 44 par. 2 e), f), i)."

 

(https://czechdefamationlaw.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/reference-for-a-preliminary-ruling-use-of-cctv-for-protection-of-the-household-from-burglary/)

 

And yes, you did read that right. The case has proceeded because the police followed up someone caught on the home security camera, and the alleged offender claimed that HIS rights have been infringed.

 

It gets worse. A 'preliminary ruling' (by the European 'Advocate General') was given in July 2014 which considered that the CCTV camera installation\operation might indeed have been in breach of the relevant EU Directive for a number of reasons, including the fact that the camera's recorded view extended beyond the domestic property. But apparently this was not to be taken to apply to portable devices such as mobile phones.

 

Neverthless, this preliminary ruling appears at variance with current English law under which, by virtue of section 36 Data Protection Act 1998, any judgment would almost certainly have sided with the householder.

 

The 'full Court's' ruling tomorrow will need to be studied carefully to see if it has much or any impact on recording patients and\or care home residents in practice.

 

One thing of which we can be reasonably sure is that the ICO will be very keen to interpret the case as interfering as little as possible with the existing English regime. It simply isn't equipped to deal with the bureaucracy that could be generated by a meddlesome widening of existing, well-established, national, data protection liabilities.

 

I'm going to be spending quite a bit of the next two days travelling for various reasons – but if anyone spots a good link to the Rynes case please do drop it into this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm going to ask you politely to retract that statement.

 

 

 

 

GOOD MORNING think about it.

 

 

I see where the misunderstanding has come about it should have read " it is my insurance about all the blatant lies told by n.h.s staff including managers and legal staff employed by the n.h.s. " this was meant to only to include those staff involved in my particular complaint.

I know the the majority of n.h.s staff are good people I have had excellent care under the n.h.s.most of my life

 

 

7 months ago I had an accident and was taken to A & E, had the most amazing care, stayed in hospital and on my trauma ward there were several octogenarians some needed complete care and the nurses could not have done better, respect and dignity was obvious. it made me very happy to witness first hand that we do have dedicated staff

I DID WRITE ON THE HOSPITAL WEBSITE ABOUT MY EXCELLENT EXPERIENCE

 

 

I feel able to shoot about my good experiences with the n.h.s BUT my bad experiences should be used by the n.h.s as a learning curve for them not ignored denied and covered up using legal teams which costs the taxpayer unbelievable amounts of money

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the MPS time this to coincide with the CQC's machinations, or is the MPS in fact unaware that the CQC guidance is intended to cover all health sectors? Odd that no reference is made to an issue so very topical.

.

 

I'm not surprised. These people live in their own bubble.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...