Hospital Consultant had serious concerns about integrity of Mr Pollard, CEO of Health
Doctor Gil Blackwood part 2
More at the free press blog of voiceforchildren
Sunday 8 February 2009
Integrity of Mr Pollard or lack of it!!!
Hospital Consultant had serious concerns about integrity of Mr Pollard, CEO of Health
Doctor Gil Blackwood part 2
More at the free press blog of voiceforchildren
Doctor Gil Blackwood part 2
More at the free press blog of voiceforchildren
Integrity of Mr Pollard or lack of it!!!
Hospital Consultant had serious concerns about integrity of Mr Pollard, CEO of Health
Doctor Gil Blackwood part 2
More at the free press blog of voiceforchildren
Doctor Gil Blackwood part 2
More at the free press blog of voiceforchildren
Integrity of Mr Pollard or lack of it!!!
Hospital Consultant had serious concerns about integrity of Mr Pollard, CEO of Health
Doctor Gil Blackwood part 2
More at the free press blog of voiceforchildren
Doctor Gil Blackwood part 2
More at the free press blog of voiceforchildren
Saturday 7 February 2009
gilblackwood.com
Recruitment and continued employment of Dr M in Jersey.
These are extracts drawn from my notes of witness interviews in the trial of Dr M relating to her recruitment as a locum doctor in the Jersey Health service. The three witnesses were the HR officer involved in the recruitment, Dr M’s statement to the police some 5 months after the incident, (Dr M chose not to give evidence during the trialand the statement was read out in court), and a Consultant in Obstetrics and Gynaecology (O&G) at the hospital, who I am labelling Cons G, who was and is one of the permanent Consultants in O&G in the hospital.
With regard to my notes, they were all taken in long hand and so were far from verbatim. There may also be some inadvertent errors. The acoustics in the public gallery of the Royal Court is poor, and one of the witnesses, the HR officer, spoke softly. Several people had coughs which added to the difficulty of hearing. Also much reference was made to the contents of the “bundle” given to the jury which included documents such as email copies etc. which were obviously not available to members of the public. However I hope the notes give a reasonably accurate flavour of what was said. The trial was recorded and there will eventually be a transcript, though I am unaware of who will be able to access it.
Read More
Satyagraha Index
Was Dr M a Consultant or a trainee?
Why the Medical Director should not have been involved in the post-incident management.
Misunderstanding of the rules of Private Practice in Jersey
Evidence relating to Dr M's recruitment
HSS Doctors and Dentists Disciplinary Procedures Feb 07
These are extracts drawn from my notes of witness interviews in the trial of Dr M relating to her recruitment as a locum doctor in the Jersey Health service. The three witnesses were the HR officer involved in the recruitment, Dr M’s statement to the police some 5 months after the incident, (Dr M chose not to give evidence during the trialand the statement was read out in court), and a Consultant in Obstetrics and Gynaecology (O&G) at the hospital, who I am labelling Cons G, who was and is one of the permanent Consultants in O&G in the hospital.
With regard to my notes, they were all taken in long hand and so were far from verbatim. There may also be some inadvertent errors. The acoustics in the public gallery of the Royal Court is poor, and one of the witnesses, the HR officer, spoke softly. Several people had coughs which added to the difficulty of hearing. Also much reference was made to the contents of the “bundle” given to the jury which included documents such as email copies etc. which were obviously not available to members of the public. However I hope the notes give a reasonably accurate flavour of what was said. The trial was recorded and there will eventually be a transcript, though I am unaware of who will be able to access it.
Read More
Satyagraha Index
Was Dr M a Consultant or a trainee?
Why the Medical Director should not have been involved in the post-incident management.
Misunderstanding of the rules of Private Practice in Jersey
Evidence relating to Dr M's recruitment
HSS Doctors and Dentists Disciplinary Procedures Feb 07
gilblackwood.com
Recruitment and continued employment of Dr M in Jersey.
These are extracts drawn from my notes of witness interviews in the trial of Dr M relating to her recruitment as a locum doctor in the Jersey Health service. The three witnesses were the HR officer involved in the recruitment, Dr M’s statement to the police some 5 months after the incident, (Dr M chose not to give evidence during the trialand the statement was read out in court), and a Consultant in Obstetrics and Gynaecology (O&G) at the hospital, who I am labelling Cons G, who was and is one of the permanent Consultants in O&G in the hospital.
With regard to my notes, they were all taken in long hand and so were far from verbatim. There may also be some inadvertent errors. The acoustics in the public gallery of the Royal Court is poor, and one of the witnesses, the HR officer, spoke softly. Several people had coughs which added to the difficulty of hearing. Also much reference was made to the contents of the “bundle” given to the jury which included documents such as email copies etc. which were obviously not available to members of the public. However I hope the notes give a reasonably accurate flavour of what was said. The trial was recorded and there will eventually be a transcript, though I am unaware of who will be able to access it.
Read More
Satyagraha Index
Was Dr M a Consultant or a trainee?
Why the Medical Director should not have been involved in the post-incident management.
Misunderstanding of the rules of Private Practice in Jersey
Evidence relating to Dr M's recruitment
HSS Doctors and Dentists Disciplinary Procedures Feb 07
These are extracts drawn from my notes of witness interviews in the trial of Dr M relating to her recruitment as a locum doctor in the Jersey Health service. The three witnesses were the HR officer involved in the recruitment, Dr M’s statement to the police some 5 months after the incident, (Dr M chose not to give evidence during the trialand the statement was read out in court), and a Consultant in Obstetrics and Gynaecology (O&G) at the hospital, who I am labelling Cons G, who was and is one of the permanent Consultants in O&G in the hospital.
With regard to my notes, they were all taken in long hand and so were far from verbatim. There may also be some inadvertent errors. The acoustics in the public gallery of the Royal Court is poor, and one of the witnesses, the HR officer, spoke softly. Several people had coughs which added to the difficulty of hearing. Also much reference was made to the contents of the “bundle” given to the jury which included documents such as email copies etc. which were obviously not available to members of the public. However I hope the notes give a reasonably accurate flavour of what was said. The trial was recorded and there will eventually be a transcript, though I am unaware of who will be able to access it.
Read More
Satyagraha Index
Was Dr M a Consultant or a trainee?
Why the Medical Director should not have been involved in the post-incident management.
Misunderstanding of the rules of Private Practice in Jersey
Evidence relating to Dr M's recruitment
HSS Doctors and Dentists Disciplinary Procedures Feb 07
gilblackwood.com
Recruitment and continued employment of Dr M in Jersey.
These are extracts drawn from my notes of witness interviews in the trial of Dr M relating to her recruitment as a locum doctor in the Jersey Health service. The three witnesses were the HR officer involved in the recruitment, Dr M’s statement to the police some 5 months after the incident, (Dr M chose not to give evidence during the trialand the statement was read out in court), and a Consultant in Obstetrics and Gynaecology (O&G) at the hospital, who I am labelling Cons G, who was and is one of the permanent Consultants in O&G in the hospital.
With regard to my notes, they were all taken in long hand and so were far from verbatim. There may also be some inadvertent errors. The acoustics in the public gallery of the Royal Court is poor, and one of the witnesses, the HR officer, spoke softly. Several people had coughs which added to the difficulty of hearing. Also much reference was made to the contents of the “bundle” given to the jury which included documents such as email copies etc. which were obviously not available to members of the public. However I hope the notes give a reasonably accurate flavour of what was said. The trial was recorded and there will eventually be a transcript, though I am unaware of who will be able to access it.
Read More
Satyagraha Index
Was Dr M a Consultant or a trainee?
Why the Medical Director should not have been involved in the post-incident management.
Misunderstanding of the rules of Private Practice in Jersey
Evidence relating to Dr M's recruitment
HSS Doctors and Dentists Disciplinary Procedures Feb 07
These are extracts drawn from my notes of witness interviews in the trial of Dr M relating to her recruitment as a locum doctor in the Jersey Health service. The three witnesses were the HR officer involved in the recruitment, Dr M’s statement to the police some 5 months after the incident, (Dr M chose not to give evidence during the trialand the statement was read out in court), and a Consultant in Obstetrics and Gynaecology (O&G) at the hospital, who I am labelling Cons G, who was and is one of the permanent Consultants in O&G in the hospital.
With regard to my notes, they were all taken in long hand and so were far from verbatim. There may also be some inadvertent errors. The acoustics in the public gallery of the Royal Court is poor, and one of the witnesses, the HR officer, spoke softly. Several people had coughs which added to the difficulty of hearing. Also much reference was made to the contents of the “bundle” given to the jury which included documents such as email copies etc. which were obviously not available to members of the public. However I hope the notes give a reasonably accurate flavour of what was said. The trial was recorded and there will eventually be a transcript, though I am unaware of who will be able to access it.
Read More
Satyagraha Index
Was Dr M a Consultant or a trainee?
Why the Medical Director should not have been involved in the post-incident management.
Misunderstanding of the rules of Private Practice in Jersey
Evidence relating to Dr M's recruitment
HSS Doctors and Dentists Disciplinary Procedures Feb 07
gilblackwood.com
Recruitment and continued employment of Dr M in Jersey.
These are extracts drawn from my notes of witness interviews in the trial of Dr M relating to her recruitment as a locum doctor in the Jersey Health service. The three witnesses were the HR officer involved in the recruitment, Dr M’s statement to the police some 5 months after the incident, (Dr M chose not to give evidence during the trialand the statement was read out in court), and a Consultant in Obstetrics and Gynaecology (O&G) at the hospital, who I am labelling Cons G, who was and is one of the permanent Consultants in O&G in the hospital.
With regard to my notes, they were all taken in long hand and so were far from verbatim. There may also be some inadvertent errors. The acoustics in the public gallery of the Royal Court is poor, and one of the witnesses, the HR officer, spoke softly. Several people had coughs which added to the difficulty of hearing. Also much reference was made to the contents of the “bundle” given to the jury which included documents such as email copies etc. which were obviously not available to members of the public. However I hope the notes give a reasonably accurate flavour of what was said. The trial was recorded and there will eventually be a transcript, though I am unaware of who will be able to access it.
Read More
Satyagraha Index
Was Dr M a Consultant or a trainee?
Why the Medical Director should not have been involved in the post-incident management.
Misunderstanding of the rules of Private Practice in Jersey
Evidence relating to Dr M's recruitment
HSS Doctors and Dentists Disciplinary Procedures Feb 07
These are extracts drawn from my notes of witness interviews in the trial of Dr M relating to her recruitment as a locum doctor in the Jersey Health service. The three witnesses were the HR officer involved in the recruitment, Dr M’s statement to the police some 5 months after the incident, (Dr M chose not to give evidence during the trialand the statement was read out in court), and a Consultant in Obstetrics and Gynaecology (O&G) at the hospital, who I am labelling Cons G, who was and is one of the permanent Consultants in O&G in the hospital.
With regard to my notes, they were all taken in long hand and so were far from verbatim. There may also be some inadvertent errors. The acoustics in the public gallery of the Royal Court is poor, and one of the witnesses, the HR officer, spoke softly. Several people had coughs which added to the difficulty of hearing. Also much reference was made to the contents of the “bundle” given to the jury which included documents such as email copies etc. which were obviously not available to members of the public. However I hope the notes give a reasonably accurate flavour of what was said. The trial was recorded and there will eventually be a transcript, though I am unaware of who will be able to access it.
Read More
Satyagraha Index
Was Dr M a Consultant or a trainee?
Why the Medical Director should not have been involved in the post-incident management.
Misunderstanding of the rules of Private Practice in Jersey
Evidence relating to Dr M's recruitment
HSS Doctors and Dentists Disciplinary Procedures Feb 07
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)