This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Read the latest issue online

CAMHS won't see you now

joseph onwude

  • GMC was advised to appeal Bawa-Garba case to 'protect reputation of profession'

    joseph onwude's comment 06 Aug 2019 10:05am

    I ask you all to forget emotions BUT consider the law. If you read Grays Anatomy and passed your exams, this will be easy. The Medical Act is easy to understand.

    1. The General Medical Council 1983 as amended in 2015
    (1) There shall continue to be a body corporate known as the General Medical Council having the functions assigned to them by this Act.
    (1A) The over-arching objective of the General Council in exercising their functions is the protection of the public.
    (1B) The pursuit by the General Council of their over-arching objective involves the pursuit of the following objectives:

    (a) to protect, promote and maintain the health, safety and well-being of the public,
    (b) to promote and maintain public confidence in the medical profession, and
    (c) to promote and maintain proper professional standards and conduct for members of that profession.

    But

    (1A) The overriding objective of the General Council in making rules under this Schedule with respect to the procedure to be followed in proceedings before a Medical Practitioners Tribunal or an Interim Orders Tribunal, or with respect to the procedure to be followed by the Investigation Committee when deciding whether to give a warning under section 35C(6), is to secure that the Tribunal or Committee (as the case may be) deals with cases fairly and justly.
    (1B) Where the General Council consider that there is a conflict between meeting the objective under sub-paragraph (1A) and the over-arching objective, they must give priority to meeting the objective under sub-paragraph (1A).

    We have priority by this schedule.

    The GMC principal legal adviser does not understand this. Deliberate? Their counsel, Mr Ivan Hare who has not been named BUT gave the wrong advice must have known about Supplement 4.

    BUT he earns a lot from GMC cases.

    Bad advice is bad advice. The GMC accepted it.

  • GMC more likely to investigate complaints against BME doctors

    joseph onwude's comment 17 Jun 2019 8:14pm

    There is no doubt that the GMC processes are discriminatory. Black is the wrong colour. I accept that. However the GMC cannot state that it is not.

    The issue is that the GMC likes to shift blame to others, by results of independent reviews.

    The GMC has again attempted to shift the issues of their behavior to BME doctors to the REFERRALS by the employers. This is disingenuous.

    A clear live recent issue: White spinal consultant doctor admits to dishonesty on a SECOND GMC serious issue. A slap on the back of the hand:(https://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j1817)

    A black doctor found to be dishonest and ERASED BUT which decision was quashed at the High Court with an order never to repeat the charge:(https://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j2525?hwshib2=authn%3A1496501412%3A20170602%253A065d0aa1-c1b5-47e2-9194-1eb38718f118%3A0%3A0%3A0%3Ae8pSfpyT0wUleNIHMKap1Q%3D%3D)

    This shift of blame from ITSELF (The GMC) to the increased referrals from employers is similar to the shift of blame from ITSELF (The GMC) to lawyers in the Bawa Garba Case.

    Everyone, except Mr Massey knew that Mr Ivan Hare, the QC gave wrong advice. Mr Massey now accepts that. He has seen the light!

    The GMC must research the meaning of an ADVICE.

    Independent reviews expose brainless executives. Only brainless executive follow bad advise.






  • GMC chief executive admits Bawa-Garba legal advice was wrong

    joseph onwude's comment 13 Jun 2019 7:02am

    I believe the initial injustice lies with the paid medical experts who could not clearly help the court to place the case in context. They should be named.


    Secondly when the case came to the MPTS, the medical experts failed her. They should be named.

    Lets look at ourselves, medical experts first. Medical experts who are totally unqualified.

    Then Lawyers who scrounge on doctor matters, and this particular lawyer depends on GMC matters.

  • Appeals court tells GMC to show 'restraint' as it quashes bid to sanction doctor

    joseph onwude's comment 18 Sep 2018 5:30pm

    Don't forget the High Court Judges who tend to sit alone (or the divisional court judges who sit as a pair). The common characteristic is that they are 'weak' or 'young' and 'kowtow' to institutions like the GMC. Their names are public record. At the appeal Court level (Bawa Garba) or Supreme Court level (Michalak), the justices feel strong enough not to kowtow and to do the right thing.

    Please spare doctors the severe trauma when GMC appeals against the MPTS by allocating 'strong and experienced' judges.

  • Appeals court rules in favour of Bawa-Garba appeal

    joseph onwude's comment 14 Aug 2018 10:24am

    The advice by Mr Ivan Hare, a barrister who is favored by the GMC has caused more damage than is possible to doctors. The fees paid to him with our subscriptions is sinking us as a profession! He was involved with Michalak and now with this case and many others.

    Forget Mr Massey - his sweaty responses show that he is out of his depth and under control of the barristers.

    We should focus on where our subscriptions are being spent. As forensic accountants say - FOLLOW THE MONEY. The barristers like Mr Ivan Hare are milking us.