BMA secretary threatens to sue representatives
BMJ 2003; 327 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7406.71-b (Published 10 July 2003) Cite this as: BMJ 2003;327:71All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
The BMA's first non-medical Secretary Mr Strachan seems to be
experiencing trouble at a rather early stage in his new post.He is of
course entitled to protect himself from libellous
publications;however,doesn’t debate over a possible legal action against
an organ of his
employer(BMA)gives a clear indication that the mutual trust and confidence
is cracking?Perhaps, Mr Strachan's lack of experience in medical trade
unionism, and underestimation of the desires of the 'medical brotherhood'
had contributed to this unsatisfactory internal clashes.Such in-fighting
will add to the list of debacles the BMA has faced in
recent times.I understand that an Emergency General Meeting of members is
canvassed by some to discuss this issue, and rightly so.As to performance-
related pay, I believe Mr Strachan's pay too, should be based on his
performance, and it should be published in the BMA’s Annual Accounts in
the interest of greater transparency.
Competing interests:
Litigation against the BMA
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dear Editor,
That your piece about the way in which I responded to a motion about
staff pay at the BMA's Torquay annual representative meeting presents a
partial view of the episode is not surprising. I was given no opportunity
to explain myself at the meeting; nor did your correspondent feel it
necessary to talk to me before going into print.
What on earth, your readers and BMA members may ask, was the BMA
Secretary doing deploying legal threats to suppress legitimate debate when
everyone else was having such a good time at the seaside? Who does he
think he is? Let us be clear: the motion was not merely directed at me
personally and couched in offensive terms but in implying that I had been
in serious breach of my duties, it was demonstrably false and thus
defamatory. These are harsh, but entirely apt, words. I expressed this
view to Dr. George Rae, chairman of the representative body, and also
suggested to him that were the motion to be debated he might like to
remind any participant who contributed in false and disparaging terms that
I would take any necessary action to defend my reputation. So while I had
no intention of allowing myself to be publicly traduced (I am a member of
another learned profession and the annual representative meeting is open
to the media) it is a serious misrepresentation - not to use a harsher
term - to report, as you did, that I "threatened to sue the chairman of
the representative body".
Asked by the agenda committee on the morning of the debate what
outcome I wanted, I said that I would like the motion to be withdrawn. I
emphasised that I had no problem with a discussion about the merits of the
underlying issue, which is whether BMA staff should continue to have their
salary increases automatically linked to rises in GP pay. The committee
responded that they could not withdraw the motion at that stage but
explained how they would seek to manage and defuse the situation should
there be a debate. A sort of understanding was reached at this time: an
understanding with which the subsequent surprise contribution from the
podium of the agenda committee member which you reported and in which he
purported to give a statement of the facts was entirely inconsistent.
Neither Dr. Rae, for whom I have the highest regard, nor his deputy Dr.
Michael Wilks was aware of what their fellow committee member was going to
say. Nor of course was I.
One final point. When the chairman of the Eastern Region Junior
Doctors Committee (which had proposed the offending motion) was approached
on the morning before the motion was due to be debated, he wrote
immediately that he was more than happy to withdraw it and pointed out
that the motion had also been withdrawn from the JDC conference as he
"felt it was inappropriate and therefore not suitable for proposal." He
did "not know how it could have reached the ARM under these
circumstances." I don't remember anyone passing this information on to
the meeting in Torquay.
It's a funny old world.
Jeremy Strachan
Secretary
British Medical Association
14/7/03
Competing interests:
See text of letter.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Goose & Gander
Sir,
I seem to recall an article in a doctor magazine in which the newly
appointed BMA Secretary stated, "I didn't do medicine because there is
more money in law for less effort". What price performance related pay for
BMA staff?
Ian Banks
Competing interests:
member BMA council UK seat
Competing interests: No competing interests