Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeds.news.ox.ac.uk!news.ox.ac.uk!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!.POSTED.chiark.greenend.org.uk!not-for-mail From: Simon Parker Newsgroups: uk.legal.moderated Subject: Re: GP could be struck off for protesting against oil. Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 10:52:51 +0100 Organization: Approved: uk.legal.moderated approval key Message-ID: References: <7254290960.66293a37@uninhabited.net> <9925138785.b88340ed@uninhabited.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: chiark.greenend.org.uk; posting-host="chiark.greenend.org.uk:212.13.197.229"; logging-data="30970"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@chiark.greenend.org.uk" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:+L4D66SIhrOr+cUQ3w1H+Jy/xQY= sha256:F2Qrig/573pgBPmnB9KT8gbwKMkQf9h97GGSYrkaOmM= X-Moderation: [17141251766318] See https://uklegal.weebly.com/ Received-SPF: pass (mailhub-hex-d.mythic-beasts.com: domain of uni-berlin.de designates 130.133.4.89 as permitted sender) client-ip=130.133.4.89; envelope-from=mod-submit@uni-berlin.de; helo=outpost5.zedat.fu-berlin.de; X-Orig-X-Trace: individual.net GBYY7W/nZG2F+D6AIS4JQQjfihtcE9/pydLBaP1+n2oBjM2zax Content-Language: en-GB X-Originating-IP: 130.133.4.5 X-ZEDAT-Hint: RO X-Mythic-Source-External: YES X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 31 X-BlackCat-To: usenet-uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk X-Mythic-Originator: uid-1081-on-lynx.mythic-beasts.com X-STUMP-Warning-0: Unfolded headers Received: Received: Received: Received: Received: Received: Received: Received: X-Auth: PGPMoose V2.0 PGP uk.legal.moderated iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEfWu6wfyjzX88oocanSrwpvmn4x4FAmYrfjYACgkQnSrwpvmn 4x6mIAf+NdGAormFlGZuFuGcJlvIPWb0W7ZlGkc2JtjnX9Bhh3BrH44n2gJN5530 PIFm6IntibZ3GCocpvnBkBDOWFL1vBwp/XKRkvUFpF3FlMsKLVLadFfN5RxQ3DXL pbsNr4+FIBNVo5HzQCjcC4qyrkFhJqpjzhSLqqQxl6qS3tAfYP2Es8COzmwFkPD8 W2HYJjrX9wChl6YWzjDrpauchgPxYGLeqUP2RhAqqutomYq07LI5baOhBMoWtpcy 8aAuMAtjTIsIv9WTBddZXoSEd/4xZ6/hgG84LKuXHAGjusgYdu4tGpYadI5ED86Z bdDw61Y8z+KC9ZzcaCBh59Qdo3VQSg== =Uj9A Originator: webstump@chiark.greenend.org.uk ([212.13.197.229]) Bytes: 14754 Lines: 274 On 25/04/2024 07:28, Pancho wrote: > On 24/04/2024 12:38, Simon Parker wrote: >> On 23/04/2024 13:41, Pancho wrote: >>> So what? >> >> To quote the GMC, "patients and the public rightly have a high degree >> of trust in doctors and that trust can be eroded if doctors repeatedly >> fail to comply with the law." (which pretty much mirrors what I've >> been saying throughout this thread was likely to be their stance, in >> advance of them formerly confirming it). >> > > You can quote the GMC, but we have no particular reason to believe or > respect their statement. Who is this "we" on whose behalf you are speaking and when and by what process were you elected as their spokesperson? > There is very little evidence to suggest that > widely supported altruistic civil disobedience by doctors does erode > public trust. We have no reason to believe the public respect or trust > the GMC. No reason to believe the public regard the GMS as anything > other than the political apparatchiks they appear to be. I've already > directed people to Trustpilot once in this thread. You are welcome to commission a survey on public trust and confidence in the GMC following this decision if you so wish. However, a vocal minority, regardless of how vocal they are, is still a minority. Allow me to draw to your attention a survey of the British public carried out by the University of Bristol in 2023, undertaken in the wake of UK Government plans to grant new North Sea oil and gas licences. According to the poll, most people frown upon the Just Stop Oil campaign group. Some headline figures from the YouGov poll: 29% of people list the environment among the top three most important issues facing the country, but the economy (65%), health (42%) and immigration and asylum (36%) were more popular choices. However, and you (and others here) may need to sit down for this next part, 68% were found to disapprove of the Just Stop Oil group, including 44% who held a very unfavourable opinion of the group. Almost half of those polled hold a "very unfavourable" opinion of JSO and the majority disapprove of the JSO Group. It seems to me that you were talking about "very little evidence" without actually having considered the evidence that does exist. Do not allow the facts of the matter to interfere with your train of thought, please continue... >>> Parallel? What does that mean? >> >> Similar or analogous to another. >> > But it really wasn't. One is about abstract politics, the other is about > technical issues relating to how well someone performs their job. These > are generally recognised as very, very distinct things. No they're not. Either a doctor has respect for the rule of law and can be trusted to obey the court, or they do not and they cannot. Dr Benn indicated in the clearest manner possible that she has no regard for the rule of law and will do whatever she wants, whenever she wants even if this means breaching court orders in the sure and certain knowledge that doing so will lead to her imprisonment. I am all for campaigning for causes in which one believes but I am not a fan of martyrdom and believe there are more effective ways of directing ones energy, time and resources. >>> If a doctor breaks medical rules, it is a medical matter. If a doctor >>> breaks the law in the course of a political protest, it is a legal >>> matter. There is no particular reason to suppose civil disobedience >>> implies a disregard for medical rules. >> >> Unfortunately for you, the GMC disagrees with you.  Going forward, >> doctors must therefore choose whether to behave according to the >> statement issued by the GMC following the outcome of Dr Benn's >> tribunal hearing, or to follow the claim you've made above. >> > It is unfortunate for us all that we have such poor political > leadership. Poor with respect to environmental policy, energy policy and > public health. It is hard to know how to influence it for the better. I > believe one way is to defend civil disobedience. I try to avoid commenting here on political matters. My stance on environmental, energy and public health policies are also immaterial. A doctor breached a court order knowing that she was likely to be imprisoned as a result. She further knew that imprisonment would lead to a MPTS tribunal at which she could be struck off. She has no regard for the court and I have no sympathy for her. She has already stopped working as a doctor around the time she started protesting. Her suspension makes not the slightest bit of difference to her and she is free to continue her campaigning as she sees fit. You are similarly free to join her if you are so minded. >>> Similarly, if a doctor repeatedly commits traffic offences, it is >>> entirely right and proper they are punished, but there is no >>> particular reason to see why it stops them practising medicine. >> >> Your 'similarly' is misplaced.  The GMC has stated quite unequivocally >> that "patients and the public rightly have a high degree of trust in >> doctors and that trust can be eroded if doctors repeatedly fail to >> comply with the law." >> > Yes, you keep saying that, but we have no reason to respect it, to > believe it is true. Again with the "we"? > As opposed to the self-serving nonsense politicians > regularly spout in order to justify their own agenda. The court issued an order. Dr Benn refused to comply with it. Ultimately, she was imprisoned as a result. "Person repeatedly ignores court order and is imprisoned as a result" is not front page news, but JSO have done an excellent job in spinning the facts to make it so. There will, no doubt, be others with whom they can do similar in the future. Don't forget though, that 68% disapprove of the Just Stop Oil group, with 44% holding a "very unfavourable" opinion of the group. >> Additionally, the MPTS tribunal "concluded that by consistently >> breaching a court order Dr Benn’s actions amounted to misconduct". >> >> They are the facts of the matter.  You may disagree with them as >> strongly as you like, but as the GMC has oversight of the professional >> standards for doctors, your thoughts on the matter are of no consequence. >> > My thoughts are of little consequence, but in a democracy, lots of > little consequences can add up to something more. Not when 68% disapprove of the organisation with which one is aligned and 44% hold a very unfavourable opinion of the group. >> I have to assume that you've never worked in a regulated profession >> where the body overseeing the profession has not only the right but an >> obligation to ensure that those working in the profession abide a set ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========