This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

pul jul aug2020 cover 80x101px
Read the latest issue online

Independents' Day

Niall Dickson: 'The GMC accepts there is a lot more to do'

The chief executive of the GMC explains how the body is improving fitness-to-practise regulations

In their recent article in Pulse, Drs Lees and Williams highlighted the impact of GMC investigations on doctors, following research by Bourne et al published in BMJ Open last week. This is an important issue, and one which we are already addressing, but we accept it is an area where more can be done.

Bourne et al looked at the responses from nearly 8000 doctors who had been investigated by various organisations, the vast majority by local NHS bodies. Unsurprisingly it found that levels of stress were higher among the 374 doctors who had been referred to the GMC.

Being referred to a national regulator is bound to be stressful - it is hard to see how that can be avoided and it is right that doctors should be accountable for their actions. But we should do what we can to minimise the trauma - that is one reason why we are exploring consensual disposal and why we are doing everything we can to speed up our processes.

That is also why, over the last few years, we have been doing everything we can to show that the system is fair, to speed up the process at every stage and provide support for both doctors and patients who find themselves involved in our investigations.

Drs Lees and Williams are right to point out that a lot of the concerns raised with the GMC are closed without a doctor ever facing action. Many of the complaints we receive could and should be resolved at a local level, with the GMC handling just the most serious concerns. We have made changes to how we deal with less serious complaints, so that we can focus on those issues that might require us to take action on a doctor’s registration.  

But contrary to what was suggested, we do not ‘welcome’ the huge rise in complaints to the GMC - not least because there is nothing we can do about most of them. What we do welcome is a more transparent system and one where doctors and patients work in partnership. 

Likewise we are keen to do everything we can to encourage a culture in healthcare institutions that encourages and supports those who raise concerns. The fact that we have to take action in a few cases where doctors have seriously or persistently flouted our guidance is not incompatible with this stance.

No ‘punishment

Some of the concerns referred to us are very serious and we must act first to protect patients. That can include asking an independent panel of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) to impose conditions on a doctor’s practice, or suspend their licence, while we investigate.

This is not, as is suggested by Drs Lees and Williams, about punishing doctors before evidence has been found proven. It is a fundamental part of our role to protect patients. These panels have a duty to assess whether there is a prima facie case which, if proved, would put patients at risk. The decisions made by those panels have no bearing on the investigation or on the final outcome, which is not determined by the same panel.

So the claim that we want to punish and punish more is quite wrong. We have always accepted that the effect of the fitness-to-practise process created by Parliament can be punitive, the point we have sought to make is that the purpose is not to punish. It is to protect patients and the reputation of the profession.

The authors depict us as punitive and vindictive yet, as they point out, we dismiss most complaints because they do not reach our threshold. Sometimes we have to investigate to reach that conclusion but we are keen that as much as possible is managed and resolved locally. 

And our consultation on sanctions guidance has provoked the largest number of replies we can remember and while we will have to wait for the detailed analysis, the overwhelming response has been positive. 

We are reaching out to the profession and engaging with front line doctors as never before, and we have revolutionised the way we engage with employers through regular face-to-face meetings. Our Employer Liaison Service (ELS) has created strong links with employers and now supports Responsible Officers in managing concerns locally, helping to make sure that doctors are referred to us only when it is necessary. We are also making better use of our data to see what more we can do to support doctors at risk of receiving a complaint.

The fitness-to-practise work we do will always be controversial. The stakes are high and the circumstances are often disputed - it is unusual for both complainant and doctor to be satisfied. But it is important work and the actions we and the MPTS, do protect patients and do help to maintain the justifiable trust patients have in the profession. We have done a lot to improve a system under a lot of pressure, but we accept there is a lot more to do.

Niall Dickson is Chief Executive of the General Medical Council

Rate this article  (1.3599999999999999 average user rating)

Click to rate

  • 1 star out of 5
  • 2 stars out of 5
  • 3 stars out of 5
  • 4 stars out of 5
  • 5 stars out of 5

0 out of 5 stars

Readers' comments (43)

  • Vinci Ho

    Interesting response from ND. Obviously,,he felt it was necessary to respond to the article and target a few specific points raised in it.
    Good to have the common understanding that more needs to be done but this also repudiates the oversimplified attitude that 'every doctor will likely to be investigated by GMC in his/her life , so get on with it and be so called resilient (with or without the special training) anyway.'

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Niall Dickson..'we are exploring consensual disposal' what on earth does that mean?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • A fully expected this type of statement, but he still missed addressing the long list of serious concerns my a mile.

    I hope he has read the comments on PULSE below the various articles. I hope that meeting the challenge head on is what he means by "accept there is a lot more to do".

    Please can they speed up before more doctors die?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Took Early Retirement

    I am still awaiting a formal response from the Police to my question about corporate manslaughter

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Niall, there has to be a judge-led independent public inquiry into the GMC.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • To me, the GMC appears to be merely a section of the Department of Health.

    It is the antithesis of a professional regulating body in that its mores appear to be set by prevailing fashion and political expediency, and the behaviour of the GMC was the major reason that I retired.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This issue of arbitrary action by the GMC is having an affect on GP recruitment, whom are the main group of doctors affected by the regulator - as reported today on Sky News.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • What is ND a 'Professor' of? (main page headline).

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Absolute rubbish!
    The GMC do not give a damn about Doctors' welfare and never will until we have a right of redress.
    I know a Partner whose patient made a trivial complaint about her direct to the GMC. Rather than directing the patient to complain to a more appropriate body in the first instance, they instead embarked on a fishing expedition by contacting the CCG and NHS England to see if they had any concerns about this Doctor. Result? Massive stress for her until, 9 months later, in their high handed way they announced they would not be pursuing the case 'in this instance'

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Sudheer Surapaneni

    The procedures applied by the GMC, after a complaint, are, Interim conditions or suspensions by the Interim panels, which convene upto six times in the first eighteen months period. At the end of this period, many doctors are being offered 'Voluntary Undertakings'(most doctors do not refuse for fear of referral to the Fitness To Practice). This pathways is highly questionable on moral and ethical grounds, as the doctor is persuaded to accept when there has been no findings of fact made against him.

    If and when the conditions and Undertakings make the doctor unemployable, the deskilled doctor cannot find support for retraining.
    No compensation for damaged and lost careers.
    No retraining responsiblity taken by Deaneries or NHS.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Sudheer Surapaneni

    Warnings by the GMC for minor dismeanours are affecting career and work prospects of doctors, which in some cases cause irreversible damage.

    The GMC has to use Occupational health procedures in sick doctors affairs instead of using the Fitness To Practice procedures, which are causing untold suffering and in some tragic cases, deaths.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Sudheer Surapaneni

    The deaths are only a tip of the iceberg, as most of the damage cannot be quantified, as it is manifested in loss of work of the doctors, emigration, burnout leading to early retirement.

    There needs steps taken by the medical and health regulators in coolaboration with NHS Employers and the Government to stem this unnecessary steady erosion of morale and the work force.

    I suggest

    1. A work force and planning body, independent of the NHS and the GMC
    2. GMC to assess the impact of the procedures, more thoroughly, especially on the subgroups of Mentally/physically ill doctors and Ethnic and foreign gradute doctors
    3. Use Occupational health supportive route in the sick/vulnerable doctors instead of the disciplinary route.
    4. GMC to give 'advisory' letters instead of 'warnings'.
    5. Government,NHS and the GMC to launch a fund for retraining of the deskilled doctors.
    6. Fitness To Practice procedures to be used only in exceptional circumstances, unlike now.
    7. Investigation into the lack of legal representation in upto half of the GMC hearings.
    8. Making the GMC procedures accountable with compensation for the loss of earnings and careers of the doctors who are exonerated after prolonged, in some cases upto half a decade or more.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Dr No's response to and commentary on Mr Dickson's article:

    'The Eichmann Defence'

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The disturbing part of Eichmann’s trial, apart from saying that he had “only been following orders” was that he did not seem to realise the enormity of his crimes and showed no remorse.

    When considering the sentence, the judges concluded that Eichmann had not merely been following orders, but believed in the Nazi cause wholeheartedly and had been a key perpetrator of the genocide.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "A hundred deaths are a catastrophe, a million are a statistic".

    Adolf Eichmann

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • give Niall Dickson a break.

    if any one understands the pressures of being a doctor it is this chap. Given that he is a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and Fellow of the Royal College of General Practitioners he is more qualified than any of the posters in pulse. Most of us will never be fellows let alone fellow of two colleges !

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @1:34

    why? He is not a doctors - How can someone who is not a doctor be more qualified to understand the pressures of a doctors. Has Mr.Dickson ever worked in a surgery or hospital? Do you work for the GMC 1:34 salaried GP?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @1:34

    that's my point - how can you become a fellow of two colleges without being a doctor ? this validates my lack of faith in the RCGP. The whole leadership system is corrupt with a revolving door culture of 'leaders' moving from one closed shop to another dictating to the front line staff who actually do the job of seeing the public.

    for there to be real change - the GMC, RCGP, BMA need to go.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Mr Dickson's response to our article in Pulse last week and to Tom Bourne's paper, and the extra-ordinarily powerful and heartfelt comments through these pages and others show that we have reached a critical low water mark with respect to the GMC.

    Perhaps we all agree that there must now be a new accomodation between the profession, the GMC and the Public. But to do this and move forward together, the GMC must explicitly have the insight to acknowledge the devastating effects that its processes have had and continue to on the profession. This isn't about a few genuinely 'bad' doctors, it's about the thousands that are frightened into submission, the hundreds that cannot work and face personal and professional ruin following interim orders following spurious and poorly investigated allegations.

    We almost need a 'truth and reconciliation' session between doctors and the GMC to lance the boil. Mr Dickson's response is welcome, and at least maybe, just maybe, the start of this process. If Mr Dickson feels that my comments are hyperbolic then I will furnish him with anonymised excerpts of emails to me from some of those affected.

    We all have a stake in getting this right, not least, as a clinician and researcher in a very high risk specialty, me.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The GMC need to abide by the rule of law and ensure all parties have the same level of legal representation. Compensation for destroyed careers is essential. There need to be legal sanctions for those individuals that break the law. The GMC must be led by people who have experience of front line medicine.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Following a Freedom of Information request to the GMC entitled:-

    ‘Number of suicides of doctors under investigation’ at

    The person asked the question:-

    1. Can you tell me how many doctors have died since 2012 under GMC investigation, at referral stage, prior or during a fitness to practice panel or within two years of an investigation being commenced including any formal warnings or any other action?

    The answer from the GMC on 18 December 2014:-

    I can confirm that the total number of such doctors who have died since 1 January 2012 is 49…

    Primary Medical Qualification Country # Doctors

    Greece 1
    Netherlands 2
    Poland 1
    India 1
    South Africa 1
    United Kingdom 22

    Total 28

    The further questions are:-

    Where did the other 21 doctors obtain their primary qualification from and is that also around 80% from the United Kingdom?

    And what has happened to the person that made this request?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Mr Dickson, I have a few suggestions for you and your fellow custodians of Public confidence to mull over
    1] You can do something about rising complaints- Stand up to public and media lynch mobs and do the right thing - Add a paragraph on your website to say that doctors are generally skilled and dedicated professionals- When things go wrong it is usually systems errors or matters beyond ones control [ie recognised complications of procedures or the natural progression /unpredictability of disease] and rarely the fault of individual doctors and to consider these factors before making a complaint ; Also add that vexatious / malicious or false allegations may lead to prosecution and amend the legislation accordingly [I’m sure that’s doable]
    2] As other colleagues have mentioned, Audit the effects of your procedures both retrospectively and prospectively ,particularly the effects on clinical services ie-
    • Establish to what extent are they responsible for the severe shortage / recruitment crises particularly in specialties such as A&E General Practice and psychiatry?
    • Apart from death what about other unfortunate outcomes of doctors who have been through your procedures and their families–ie how many suffer from anxiety or mental health issues as a result [as mentioned in Prof Bourne’s research] ; How many retire early or emigrate? how does one quantify the loss of skills and expertise to the NHS as a result?
    • As mentioned by Dr Lees,What about the devastating effects of suspension or ‘conditions’ regularly applied by your Interim order panels based on dubious , one sided logic and usually very little evidence.– What are the effects on the shop floor-ie how are hard pressed acute rotas covered when someone suddenly comes off it in less than 24 hours notice? How can senior colleagues be ‘supervised ‘ ? What about the added pressure / additional clinical and administrative workload and strained working relationships on already stretched colleagues? What about clinics / operating lists cancelled at short notice? What about the added enormous costs of locums or the effects of deskilling from prolonged restrictions or suspensions? Doesn’t this have the potential to seriously disrupt clinical services and ENDANGER patients rather than protect them?
    • What about the massive increase in aggression and intimidation faced by doctors from patients and relatives?

    3] Make yourselves more accountable – You have been curiously silent on the death investigation ; What about the non suicide deaths? To what extent did the GMC processes contribute to those – Or is that something you intend to wish away?

    4] Finally in the spirit of candour you are so keen to propagate, I humbly suggest that you and your colleagues do some honest soul searching and ask whether the stance you take is really about protecting patients or about justifying your existence –and your salaries

    Dr Patty Rao ; Consultant Paediatrician

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Having a complaint against you is stressful for Drs. We try to do our best and are genuinely hurt when we fail. This failure is mostly due to disease progression and diagnostic uncertainty. We feel professional and personal hurt when the patients decide it is our fault.
    It might be useful if the GMC had two separate procedures.
    1 you are a bad person (paedophile, arsonist, fraudster) and you are also a Dr.
    2 you are a Dr and you might not be up to scratch

    these assessments are very different and would have different impacts when being investigated.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment


    23 January 2015

    Dear Dr Miller

    Reference: IAT/ME/F14/6735

    I am sorry for the delay in responding to your e-mail of 26 November 2014
    in which you ask about doctors who have died whilst there was an IOP case
    concerning them. The information which answers your first 2 questions is
    shown in the tables, below:

    1) How many IOP cases, where the doctor was suspended, were closed due to
    the death of the doctor concerned?

    Hearing Year Number of Doctors
    2009 1
    2010 2
    2011 3
    2012 2
    2013 3
    Grand Total 11

    2) How many IOP cases, not resulting in the suspension of the doctor, were
    closed due to the death of the doctor?

    Hearing Year Number of Doctors
    2009 1
    2012 8
    2013 5
    Grand Total 14

    The total number of doctors who died, whilst there was an open fitness to
    practise case concerning them in each of these years is as follows:

    2009 = 10
    2010 = 9
    2011 = 11
    2012 = 14
    2013 = 21

    I hope that this information is helpful to you.

    Kind regards

    Mark Ellen
    Information Access Team
    General Medical Council
    3 Hardman Street
    Manchester M3 3AW
    Direct Line: 0161 923 6347

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • What is going on?

    [name removed] (Account suspended) made this Freedom of Information request to General Medical Council

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Dear Mr Dickson,
    There are many ways that that stress associated with a GMC referral might be minimized for the vast majority besides seeking to curtail the experience through consensual disposal. The most basic of these is ensuring that there is an appropriately high standard of analysis of cases from the outset by professionals with relevant expertise and experience. We are aware of many cases where this clearly hasn’t happened and it is also borne out by comments from doctors surveyed in the GMC’s own research (Community Research Exploring the experience of doctors who have been through the GMC’s complaints procedures: Final Research Report General Medical Council March 2013). I was pleased that you told the Health Select Committee that you are taking steps to try to ensure the most serious cases are assigned to the more senior and experienced decision makers but that may still leave others where it takes far too long before basic common sense intervenes.

    I am also pleased that you do not welcome the huge rise in complaints to the GMC although this is the impression we have gleaned from past statements (page 5 On the State of Medical Education and Practice in the UK 2013; GMC Statement in response to ‘Factors associated with variability in the assessment of UK doctors’ professionalism’ 28 October 2011).
    It was not our intention to portray the GMC as vindictive so I must apologise if you felt that. On the other hand we would stand by comments about GMC processes being punitive because – whatever may be said to the contrary – that is how they are perceived. It is not just doctors who may regard the GMC’s sanctions as a punishment: we cited the view of academic lawyer Paula Case (someone whom the GMC itself cites as an authority in the 2014 State of Medical Education and Practice Report) “the rationales for sanctions and punishments share much common ground”. It was also Case who suggested that ‘the process is the punishment” in relation to interim orders. I suspect it is also the perception of parts of the media and general public - how else can one explain news items such as this
    But I really don’t want our key concern to be buried in a battle of semantics. They are that some aspects of current regulatory systems (including the GMC but not confined to it) may now be working against patients’ interests through distorting practice and encouraging doctors to reduce hours, retire or leave the UK. You refer to taking action “in a few cases where doctors have seriously or persistently flouted our guidance”. Our point is that in order to deal with them, a vast number of doctors are having their wellbeing put at serious risk for lengthy periods and at substantial costs to ‘the system’. This is not proportionate and is not likely to benefit patients. Surely, there has to be a better way of safeguarding patients (including ourselves and our families) while enabling doctors to get on with their practice free from fear?

    Hilarie Williams (co-author of original article)

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • In this fascinating and revealing interview, Professor Brian Edwards asks some very important questions and gets definitive answers from international expert Professor Brian Jarman

    Professor Edwards:- What advice would you give a Chief Executive of a Trust with a posted high mortality score?

    Professor Jarman:- “A high HSMR is a trigger to ask hard questions. Good hospitals monitor their HSMRs actively and seek to understand where performance may be falling short and action should not stop until the clinical leaders and the Board at the hospital are satisfied that the issues have been effectively dealt with.”

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @ Hilarie Williams also @ Niall Dickson (if you're reading this article)

    Apologies for posting anonymously but I fear reprisals and have little confidence in this regulator to act appropriately.

    In the small number of cases to which Mr Dickson refers, " a few cases where doctors have seriously or persistently flouted our guidance" the police and courts to deal with law breaking where needed. Local procedures to deal with other issues in the vast majority of cases. Unwell doctors to be managed by occupational health. Doctors to be subject to a fit and proper judicial process as any other member of the public would expect to be. The GMC's activities to be scaled back in line with other modern western health systems.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Regarding these on-going discussions about medical regulation, one word keeps coming up again and again. That word is "fear".

    A culture of fear is unlikely to do anybody any good.

    I do hope the GMC will seriously consider the thoughts of Christoph Lees and Hilarie Williams. Otherwise the risk is that any potential culture of fear may heighten further. In my view any such culture of fear will not be helped through military approaches (GMC senior officials recently suggested this at a parliamentary hearing). In my opinion regulation is necessary but disproportionate fear is not. The heightening of fear amongst healthcare professionals risks working against patients interests.

    Dr Peter J. Gordon

    "We are being regulated to death"

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The document from the expert witness who looked at my case for the GMC which was dismissed after 8+ months was titled

    Dr XXXX vs. The GMC

    this was a document to see if the case should go to the fitness to practice committee (it never did).
    So before I had ever had to defend myself the GMC which I pay for had put up an adversarial front. So much for being supportive.......

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Another comment from another story in PULSE today the likes of which appear very frequently:

    Anonymous | GP Partner | 26 January 2015 10:50am

    I am 58 and just survived 6 months of a GMC investigation before it was thrown out. This has completely taken the stuffing out of me and having formerly intended to work until I was 65 am now seriously thinking of stopping later this year. This is what a GMC investigation does to people. What exactly are the incentives to make people like me stay on?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The GMC are putting the public at risk by depriving them of doctors.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • GMC v McCarthy v Witchfinder General v Spanish Inquisition


    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "A Kangaroo Court" by Dr Shankur N Kashyap

    This is a story of a doctor’s trial through the mill set by the GMC when he found himself in their cross-hairs.

    1. Did the sky fall on my head or was it pushed?
    2. The nightmare begins.
    3. Comedy of Errors.
    4. The Interim Orders Panel
    5. The Humiliation begins.
    6. The Hearing.
    7. Day one; Monday, 28th April 2008.

    15. Day nine; Friday, 9th May 2008.
    16. The Period of Tranquility.
    17. “No Case to Answer.”
    18. “You have the patience of a saint. I would like to shake you by the hand, if I may.”
    19. The Period of Introspection
    20. The Inquisition begins.
    21. The Final stage, or is it?
    22. What next?
    23. “Never allow someone to be your priority while allowing yourself to be their option.”
    24. And Finally...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Folks, show Professor Niall Dickson some respect! He is a fellow of our two most prestigious colleges and shortly to be knighted! He fights for every-bodies rights, like the 'barons' of the eponymous charter!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Sorry Niall Dickson. I am not personally against any one. I am anxious that humanism and spirituality should seep into the various procedures. Modern man has learnt ways of destruction more than construction. GMC should have social responsibility. They should investigate thoroughly, expeditiously and transparently. The panels should visit the doctors' place of work and have a feel for the values of the work place. We should be able to change public perceptions. I was told by my medical defence that the public think Indian doctors get into problems. I thought it was a bizarre statement as none of my patients thousands of them thought I was fit to be referred. It was my trust that referred me to the GMC. MPTS noted my impeccable career of 32 years, but yet it thought I had serious impairment, as my barrister argued that I had impairment, 'as he thought that it would help show that I had insight'. Once the original panel found me to have impairment, the later panels stuck to it, as they can't revisit it. I have now resigned from our trust, as I couldn't put up with the discriminatory regimen, and harassment of the whistle blower. I have started a blog
    I shall be posting all the documents, for all to see, as I believe that GMC should be able to take in all the information and process it, and not leave huge relevant chunks.
    GMC should do what is right. GMC is not a media management organisation giving false hope to the patients of excellence where there is none.
    I was told by the GMC that it is not concerned with dishonesty or lack of probity, and it only looks at clinical performance.
    How can you get honest information about clinical performance from guys who are dishonest and lack probity?
    Our trust had dozen never incidents and none of the clinicians went to GMC, as our trust thought all of them were OK.
    GMC should open its eyes wide and be expeditious and have good value for money. Prolonged procedures and decisions based on perceptions do huge damage to doctors' morale.
    One can't expect excellent performance from professionals who are undervalued in their work place.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The report was a whitewash.


    Neither the Dental Council nor the Nursing Council supervise such slaughter - up to 20 doctors a year die whilst being investigated by the GMC.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This comment has been moderated.

  • This cannot go on!! We need a coordinated orchestrated response from the BMA - FFS !

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "At the end of it all, exceptionally few people understand what happened to them and even less have the will to continue to fight. Usually, one is totally demoralized at the end of it, and many doctors either leave the country or stop working altogether even if they are successful in clearing their name. This process has destroyed so many careers and families over the years that it can be seen as nothing less than a modern Spanish inquisition.”

    Except from "A Kangaroo Court" by Dr Shankur N Kashyap

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • this is from the rcgp ...

    RCGP fellowship is an honour and mark of achievement recognising a significant contribution to:

    the health and welfare of the community
    the science or practice of medicine
    the aims of RCGP, or any organisation which benefits general practice

    Dr Niall Dickson is a Fellow of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

    you can put two and two together ...

    a bit like the several days notice to bid for £200 million ...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Who cares about the careers dying under investigation

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • A colleague died as he could not sleep and had a mi all to help a violent patient with half mg of risperidone from a discarded bottle of a another challenging disabled child
    Complaint by nurse

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • are you never going to get it ?

    cook up and cock up !

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say