There was an NHS whistleblower at Gosport Memorial Hospital. We often wonder why the tabloids did not make a big deal of this important person. It was left to the patients relatives to campaign for an Inquiry. They managed it. I am always honoured to know my friend Ann Reeves, probably the most admirable campaigner I have known. She has kept strong and carried on for many years. Gosport requires justice. The issue relates to the use of drug cocktails to shorten lives of patients. Here is the Inquiry website https://gosportpanel.independent.gov.uk/ http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/gosport-hospital-deaths-to-get-public-inquiry-at-last-8803463.html I am not sure the terms of reference go far enough in examining the spectacular failures by the CPS, the Police, the NHS authorities in bringing this case to justice. We shall see what they come up with. It should be noted that we discovered that Dr Jane Barton's [ the doctor accused in this case] had a brother called Professor Christopher Bulstrode who was part of the GMC during the time she was being tried. This is the most entertaining of his quotes. "Professor Chris Bulstrode, of Oxford University, a consultant orthopaedic surgeon and member of the GMC, said: 'This website is a great idea and will put the cat among the pigeons with the medical profession, which is just what's needed. Doctors will feel threatened, and rightly, as one or two will find their trousers round their ankles.' http://www.theguardian.com/society/2008/jul/13/nhs.health I hope Bulstrode is turning up to the Inquiry and I hope the GMC will open its doors to maintain transparency. We all need to see what lies beneath the GMC's usual glossy image. I thought the CHRE review was quite a classic, Robert Jay QC [ originally my lawyer in Pal v GMC] defended the CHRE and Jane Barton swanned off into the sunset. The document I wrote for this review is always quite popular as bed time reading http://www.academia.edu/3215736/Submission_to_the_CHRE_review_into_the_GMCs_Decision_RE_Dr_Jane_Barton . Apparently, the CHRE could not consider it as it was a few hours late :). Dr Jane Barton was allowed off the GMC register without a stain on her name. The NHS also gave her a pension. We should note that the NHS has never offered whistleblowers like me a pension for my old age despite the fact one of us served to uphold patient safety and the other one didn't do much for it. The GMC acted in a very lenient way in the case of Dr Barton and the Daily Wail describes it well here when they screamed about Barton being able to carry on working despite the findings against her. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247000/Dr-Jane-Barton-escapes-struck-prescribing-potentially-hazardous-levels-drugs.html In comparison, I wonder how many whistleblowers, the GMC has got fired. Certainly, they engaged my Trust into firing me 6 months before they cleared me. When they got to the court, they stated it was a resignation despite the fact a letter had been sent to me firing me. That is of course the beauty of hiring a QC for thousands. The GMC can convince the world of their own version of the truth. Then there is the minor point of the legions of medical whistleblowers who were struck off - Dr Sushant Varma, Dr Shreedar Vaidya etc. None of these doctors ever killed a patient. The GMC's role in the Barton case may escape scrutiny yet again but at some point, someone should ask the questions as to why the GMC refused doctors with severe dementia the right to voluntary erasure but agreed to it in Barton's case. The GMC's famous quote "Niall Dickson, the GMC's chief executive, said afterwards: 'We are surprised by the decision to apply conditions in this case. Our view was the doctor's name should have been erased from the medical register following the panels finding of serious professional misconduct.We will be carefully reviewing the decision before deciding what further action, if any, may be necessary.' The panel was made up of four lay members and a doctor. Of course, the words of ex BBC Journalist Mr Dickson did not stand the scrutiny of time. Where was this review? What did they do subsequent to their statement in the media. Well, they hoped that the entire case would be shoved under the carpet and that everyone could live happily ever after. Of course, when dealing with tough campaigners like Ann Reeves, there is no happily ever after until justice is truly served. I think the establishment has learned that by now.