I believe the Hooper Review on Whistleblowing and the GMC was rather weak in a number of ways. It is sad really since SIr Hooper had so much potential in holding the GMC accountable and instigating a review that would be constructive. I wrote this in response to the article here https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/news-and-events/blogs/regulatory-and-professional-discipline-blog/defending-doctors/patient-safety-at-the-heart-of-whistleblowing-recommendations-to-gmc. It is important to reiterate that no junior doctor should raise concerns with the GMC on patient safety. The likelihood is that the investigation will always be reversed back onto them. Sir Hooper's review was a very superficial outlook on the GMC's mismanagement of whistleblowing doctors. Secondly, he makes no reference to his source material nor do we know what conflicts were involved. I doubt a review paid for by the GMC can ever be considered "independent". There was an opportunity here to hold the GMC to account for its mismanagement of whistleblowers. What actually happened was a superficial assessment of its already fault processes. There have been so many casualties from the GMC's malformed processes that nothing but a public inquiry will do the whistleblowers justice. We made a number of suggestions in our paper here http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/104/7/278.full . Sadly, all organisations have conducted very superficial nepotistic self serving reviews claiming they do understand whistleblowers. It must be appreciated, where there is no accountability, there is no redress or improvement. The final suggestion in the above article is laudable but the GMC has never admitted it was wrong even when called "totalitarian" by a High Court judge. Regards Dr Rita Pal Former Whistleblower Conflicts declared Pal v General Medical Council, settled in my favour. Second author to Whistleblowing and Patient Safety http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/104/7/278.full