Monday, 28 May 2012

Peter Bottomley's Connections.

Weightmans made a formal complaint to the BSB against the Peter Bottomley supported journalist/barrister 
Download the entertaining judgment at the BSB here.
Weightmans is currently representing the Metropolitan Police and have gone silent since discovering that they are defending the actions of the man they complained to the BSB about :).

I have always found Peter Bottomley to be a fascinating man. On one hand he is a self made supporter of whistleblowers. As with most men, there is a different aspect of him to observe in detail. Lets call this a facet of his personality. 

Life  isn't so simple for Peter when it comes to me. Infact it is quite difficult given both his wife and daughter are linked to me in some way. 

1. First, we observe the public document on Peerage

Hon. Cecilia Peggy Evelyn Horestone Bottomley1
F, #373564, b. 1 September 1969

Last Edited=5 Mar 2012
     Hon. Cecilia Peggy Evelyn Horestone Bottomley was born on 1 September 1969.1 She is the daughter of Sir Peter James Bottomley and Virginia Hilda Brunette Maxwell Garnett, Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone.2 She married Matthew Waltham in 1998.3
     She was educated at Trinity College, Cambridge University, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, England.3 From 1998, her married name became Waltham.3 She was a consultant gynaecologist and obstretician.3
Children of Hon. Cecilia Peggy Evelyn Horestone Bottomley and Matthew Waltham
Aurelia Waltham3 b. 1998
Nell Waltham3 b. 2000

2. These are my links to his relatives. One is the fact I sued the General Medical Council in 2004 and with litigation papers flying before that. Details of that are here. During litigation, the General Medical Council and its Trustees were sued. One of those Trustees was none other than the daughter of Peter and Virginia - Dr Cecelia Bottomley. See evidence from the GMC. The actions involved in 2004 in court related to the matters in the year 2000-2002. By way of her role as Trustee, Cecelia Bottomley would have been aware of the issue. Bottomley Junior was privy to most of the dealings between the General Medical Council and me. This includes the final order by the court. The General Medical Council had alleged mental health issues on the strength of one typographical error. They later had to pay a settlement and confirm that they had no concerns about my fitness to practise. The GMC also issued a letter of apology. 

3. Then there is of course the role of Virginia Bottomley. Her role in the neglect of individuals of Ward 87 preceding my time of whistleblowing in 1999 is self evident. Most of the problems on Ward 87 can be placed on her doorstep at the Department of Health.  

4. Peter Bottomley and Private Eye are intimately related. Indeed, there are numerous emails flying between them on a regular basis. They may refute this but I have the evidence. There is of course the minor issue of the emails flying around to the head of the Bar Standards Board written by none other than the eloquent Peter Bottomley Esq. A gentleman always emails more than once in matters of great importance.One can understand and appreciate why Private Eye did not want the issue of Ward 87 and the machinations of the General Medical Council [involving his daughter] to grace their pages. Afterall, Private Eye's allegiance to Peter Bottomley MP is a settled matter between gentlemen. 

So we ask ourselves many questions - what was the role of Peter Bottomley in making a report to the Metropolitan Police in July 2011? Apparently, I had written to Parliament, written a few emails and  critical websites. The local police confirmed that the complaint had no merit. Following the failed arrest attempt against me,on the same week, Peter Bottomley wrote to the General Medical Council about me asking them for further data. That is a slightly odd thing to do for an MP on the same week his BSB sanctioned colleague trotted down to the Metropolitan Police and spread a tissue of dishonesties.

We ask ourselves the question again - is he a protector of whistleblowers or does he wish to silence them?

In conclusion, Peter has a motive of course and it is a fine thing being an MP with all the influences that the Conservative Party is able to provide.

If the Metropolitan Police are reading this - they should congratulate their lawyers for reporting Mr Bottomley's colleague to the BSB last year. Such a good pedigree of lawyers who go by the name of Weightmans these days :). This was the result achieved by Weightmans

"Andrew Bousfield between 28 October 2007 and 23 February 2008 held himself out or allowed himself to be held out as a barrister, pursuant to paragraph 201 of the Bar’s Code of Conduct, in correspondence with MJ solicitors dated 29 October 2007, undated but around 6 November 2007 and 14 November 2007, for the purposes of supplying legal services to a member of the public, namely P, without having complied with the practising requirements in paragraphs 202(a) to 202(d) of the Bar’s Code of Conduct which by virtue of its nature, degree, repetition and/or combination with the matters set out in charge 2 was so serious as to be likely to bring the Bar into disrepute"

One simply has to congratulate the Metropolitan Police for having such good taste in lawyers. There is of course a minor issue though, having reported the above gentleman to the Bar Standards Board, they have the difficult task of defending his actions in court :). One has to smile from a distance only because if this wasn't so serious, it would probably be quite a thigh slapping comedy. 

Of course, at the end of it all, one should remember that I am not a struck off doctor and neither have I ever had a mental health assessment. Yes, all these were speculated to the police by parties known to Peter [ Reference - Police documents].  What is interesting is the similarities in the events of the GMC described in [2] and the events last year at the Metropolitan Police. Can we say "smear campaign" :)?

Even though Peter dear may wish to run around to prove these fabrications, it is never going to be possible no matter how powerful he is. 

Until next time readers......... Ciao.

PS In the event anyone wishes to arrest me, feel free to do so. Am happy to write a feature on it.  The truth will never be removed no matter how much dirt is flung in my direction. All parties will understand this in time.

Tuesday, 13 September 2011

On the Copycat Trail. Kevin Barron MP, Phil Hammond, Private Eye, Peter Bottomley to the EDM

Lifting Ideas From Research Papers. 

This document shows the trail of evidence from the development of ideas by us to the feature by Private Eye. As demonstrated by the EDM, Private Eye has made all our developed ideas their own. Parliament was effectively used for this. Private Eye has a weak defence. It is so weak, we decided not to feature it but we may do so in the future for the sake of the level of comedy. 

Kevin Barron MP is one of the signatories to EDM 2031. This is his intro from Debretts.

"NCB 1962-83 (NUM exec for Maltby Colliery), pres Rotherham andDistrict TUC; MP (Lab) Rother Valley 1983-; shadow min for: energy1988-92, employment 1992-93, health 1995-96, public health1996-97; PPS to Neil Kinnock 1985-88 as Leader of the Opposition;memb: Energy Select Ctee 1983-85, Environment Select Ctee1992-93, Intelligence and Security Ctee 1997-2005; chair:Yorkshire Gp of Lab MPs 1987-, PLP Health Ctee 1997-, All-PtyGp on Pharmaceutical Industry 1997-2005, All-Pty Gp on Smoking& Health 1997-, Food Standards Agency Ctee, Health Select Ctee2005-10, Standards and Privilages Ctee 2010-; vice-pres Royal Socof Health 2007-; lay memb GMC 1999-2008"

As everyone will note, EDM 2031 suggests the idea of  "anticipates effective action by the Health Select Committee and the NHS". The only action that can be taken by the HSC is an Inquiry into Whistleblowing. So, we ask ourselves, who developed the idea of the Whistleblowing Inquiry first?

So here is the history. In 2009, a letter came through the post from one Kevin Barron. At the time he was head poncho of the Health Select Committee and also sidled up to the GMC. He refused any "effective action by the HSC". He appears to have had a change of heart after this idea went to Phil Hammond and then found its way into Private Eye and subsequently on a Parliamentary EDM. I was rather surprised to find his name on the signatory list signing of on an idea he had initially rejected.

This is how it all happened.

It all started with a email to Andrew Mitchell MP early in 2009. I asked Mr Mitchell to request a Whistleblower Inquiry. Andrew wrote to the HCS Committee and obtained a response from Kevin Barron. [27th April 2009]

"Thank you for your recent letter regarding correspondence you have had with your constituent Dr Rita Pal. The Health Committee has no plans to hold an inquiry into whistle blowing in the NHS. However, as you will know, the Committee is currently conducting an inquiry into Patient Safety in the NHS and, as part of this inquiry we are looking at its complaints procedures. Dr Pal has been in touch with the Committee and her correspondence has been made available to Members of the Committee"  
Yours sincerely - Signed Kevin Barron

It is therefore abundantly clear by this and Private Eye's own reporting of the above that the idea of the Whistleblowing Inquiry/review was effectively mine.

"Private Eye "More Staffing Problems Private Eye No 1234 17th - 30th April 2009 "Dr Pal has lobbied (via her MB Andrew Mitchell) for the Commons health select committee to investigate the problems faced by whistleblowers in the NHS" .

On the 17th May 2011, a preliminary copy of the JRSM paper was sent to Phil Hammond of Private Eye by email. A request was made to cite the paper and cover the conclusions. He agreed to this. Phil Hammond had the drafts of the research paper as early as January 2011 [ confirmed by him].

Firstly, in the July edition the JRSM published these recommendations. These conclusions had been developed many months before.

"Our recommendations are firstly that the profession, through the GMC or BMA Council, should commission a Consultation Group on Reporting Poor Care. This Group will examine the consequences to all parties from incidents of reported poor care. Second, the Government should consider establishing a Health Select Committee Review of Whistleblowing that would make impartial recommendations to Government and the profession. Third, the Government should consider setting up and resourcing a National Whistleblowing Centre similar to that in the US. We believe that only by open public scrutiny will constructive change be cemented into exemplary clinical practice"

On the 5th July 2011, Private Eye [ Philip Hammond and Andrew Bousfield] published the same conclusions but failed to cite the paper. They effectively made the conclusions their own then advertised it everywhere. A request was made to cite the paper. This was refused. A request was issued to Mr Bottomley, that was refused. Bottomley huffed and puffed.  What did come through the email box was this.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:Andrew Bousfield
Date:Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:08:43 +0100
From:Dr Helen Bright <drhelenbright@>
To:Rita Pal <dr.ritapal>

Ritz, Andrew has proposed to give credit to your paper and for you to take down your postings on the Internet. What do you think? Actions speak louder than words. 


As no one was very impressed by this, we decided it was important to present the antics of Private Eye, Peter Bottomley and the rest of the clan online. It is of course for the public to judge whose ideas were taken by Private Eye. Private Eye of course could not develop proper policy solutions even if the fate of England depended on it.

Monday, 12 September 2011

Peter Bottomley, Libel Reform and Team Bottomley

On this website, we examine the conduct of Mr Peter Bottomley. How far have Bottomley and his associates gone to neutralise opposition to EDM2031? That is for us to disclose later this month. In the meantime, this is what he says about Libel Reform 

“Parliament should without delay make the law clear. The costs should be limited to half the estimate damage if the words are potentially untrue, damaging and not privileged. Additionally, the subject of the complaint should have a statute right to show that the UK is not the relevant court for one of a list of clear reasons. Also, the limit of costs and damages combined should not be higher than the number of listeners or readers multiplied by say 50 pence. Twenty readers creates the combined limit of ten pounds; two million copies might lead to a calculation of £1 million.”

With all the talk of free speech, Peter Bottomley's name was found on a barrister's website. It stated as follows

"Peter Bottomley MP v Express Newspapers (1995): acted for C in a successful libel action over the allegation that the claimant had betrayed British servicemen in Northern Ireland by sharing a platform with Sinn Fein"

No doubt Bottomley relied on the original legislation he now wishes to reform. So much for freedom of expression. Here he is huffing at super-injunctions.

A interesting arrival on the online scene is this email whose contents originate from his associates. The email  requests that I remove all my criticisms for a reference to the research paper. Of course, one has to politely decline such ungentlemanly behaviour from Team Bottomley. It occurred to me that none of the men had attended Debretts for their training sessions in etiquette.  Apart from that, we will present emails where Mr Bottomley tries to streamline a writer's tone and content of correspondence.

There appears to be a difference between what is said and what is done. 

Sunday, 11 September 2011

The MPs Supporting EDM 2031

This is the link for all the MPs supporting this alleged intellectual property theft. Most of them were informed that  the recommendations were essentially lifted from a research paper published on the JRSM website. In the ordinary world, lifting ideas would be plagiarism and therefore misconduct. In Parliament though, EDMs are governed by privilege. MPs are not held accountable for them. This means, ideas can be lifted from scientific papers and effectively printed on an EDM without acknowledgement of the source.

Further documents will be placed up concerning the actions taken by these MPs. 

This website is intended to be a correction under the Data Protection Act. What cannot be rectified by Parliament, will be rectified online. One must forgive Parliament, it still operates as if it is in the 18th Century.