I have always felt that most whistleblowers who are consultants suffer from a case of an over-inflated ego. For some reason, they feel at £70,000 pa on suspension, we should pity them or have some sympathy. I think about how my pay was docked to £500 per month post whistleblowing and wonder why I didn't whinge but survived. Lots of people suffer badly - the homeless, disabled and the elderly etc. I think senior whistleblowers are fairly well kitted out. I suspect their fall from grace is hard to handle whereas the rest of us were in the gutter looking at the stars to start with. The public should deliver their sympathy to more worthy causes. Then I suspect the glitter of position, status, power and a fall from grace engages the sympathy of the masses more so than the average homeless man/woman on the street. Here is a case that everyone wishes to bleat about http://www.thisislancashire.co.uk/news/13791965.__70_000_a_year_liver_surgeon_faces_wait_to_clear_his_name_after_dismissal/ . It is interesting we never hear about junior doctors in the same vein. It's possibly because the same elite group decides to push forward their cases by using the power of Parliament and publicity to influence their cases. It is true that MPs take senior doctors cases far more seriously due to the factors already described. There is a little trick to winning. The trick is to keep your cards close to your chest, try not to piss your employers off by spilling your story in the media and focus on beating them by clear, robust tactical argument. All this requires hard work and not showmanship in the media. Now, this escapes many doctors. Its possibly why they end up losing. Courts hate pre-case publicity. Employers hate hearings being unfairly influenced. Overall, the media isn't the brightest idea for those who are supposedly clever. Then what do I know :)> I am just a chess player not a media diva. I am not fond of the fact that the Trust in this case is essentially gagged by the Data Protection Act. We cannot hear the Trust's side and we don't have their internal documents with which to balance the evidence. Here the media demands we believe a one sided story but presents no evidence whatsoever to tell us why we should back it. We aren't told specifically what this man's concerns were. We are meant to "believe" in the media much like people believe in God. I would like to know what the specifics of the patient safety issues are before labeling him as a whistleblower. No doubt his fellow consultant buddies will be rallying around him with tea and sympathy. Its strange that here we see the consultant talk only about himself. He doesn't tell the media about the moves made to improve patient safety. There are allegations of discrimination etc etc but the bottom-line is what procedures and processes were done to improve patient safety. What efforts did this consultant make? Have these concerns been reported widely? I have worked at Burnley General. I didn't find the place too bad really. At least the management was pretty nice to locum doctors in those days. This doesn't mean a thing but one can usually tell what management is like by the way they treat their temporary staff. So while Burnley General is being slated by the media, I would like to thank them for employing me for the time period when I really needed to survive. It was a good exchange, I worked hard and they paid me well. The free parking and accommodation was nice too.