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.
I can’ t quite workout if the BMJ are being triumphalistic, high fiving in the office clutching their organic, ethically sourced Venti Soy Quadruple Shot Latte with No Foam or if they are lamenting the success of the mighty over the weak.
Maybe there is no answer and their moral compass now acts as a desk fan.
Please don’ t misunderstand me I would not wish to condone Nwachuku’s Misdemeanour anymore than I would:
1. Colleagues who make a financial claim for ‘extra-clinical’ work during their contractual hours
2. Those who misrepresent the criticism they receive from the Appeal court or the Coroner.
3. Those doctors who pervert the course of Justice.
4. Those who defraud the public purse by manipulating waiting lists
5. The colleagues who still enjoy a platinum merit award long after they stopped doing anything meritorious.
Greed and corruption are corrosive and repulsive. They provoke indignation which would make most of us respond to the call of Victor Hugo’s student revolutionaries to “man the barricades!”
But, on the theme of French Romantics, would we really side with the Police Inspector, Javert, in his misguided and self-destructive pursuit of justice or even the GMC in this case?
Aside from the fact the success of the GMC undermines the independence of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service. The crime and charge in this case is surely the profligate misuse of our GMC subscriptions.
For any normal human being going to the High Court usually involves risking large sums or even your home. It is not something any of us would do lightly or over a trivial matter but not so with the GMC who take no personal risk and spend our funds.
Like Cicero, I ask Cui bono? "For whose benefit?" 1
This is a disturbing trend when one notes recently a three day hearing was conducted for a doctor already serving a 15 year prison sentence.
It is well understood that there are few winners if natural justice prevails. The exception, of course, are those who enjoy the gravy train, which is becoming ever richer and distasteful!
1. "Cicero: Pro Sex. Roscio Amerino". thelatinlibrary.com.
Re: Trainee GP who was warned over falsifying timesheets to get new sanction after GMC appeal
The BMJ declares, the GMC won!
I can’ t quite workout if the BMJ are being triumphalistic, high fiving in the office clutching their organic, ethically sourced Venti Soy Quadruple Shot Latte with No Foam or if they are lamenting the success of the mighty over the weak.
Maybe there is no answer and their moral compass now acts as a desk fan.
Please don’ t misunderstand me I would not wish to condone Nwachuku’s Misdemeanour anymore than I would:
1. Colleagues who make a financial claim for ‘extra-clinical’ work during their contractual hours
2. Those who misrepresent the criticism they receive from the Appeal court or the Coroner.
3. Those doctors who pervert the course of Justice.
4. Those who defraud the public purse by manipulating waiting lists
5. The colleagues who still enjoy a platinum merit award long after they stopped doing anything meritorious.
Greed and corruption are corrosive and repulsive. They provoke indignation which would make most of us respond to the call of Victor Hugo’s student revolutionaries to “man the barricades!”
But, on the theme of French Romantics, would we really side with the Police Inspector, Javert, in his misguided and self-destructive pursuit of justice or even the GMC in this case?
Aside from the fact the success of the GMC undermines the independence of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service. The crime and charge in this case is surely the profligate misuse of our GMC subscriptions.
For any normal human being going to the High Court usually involves risking large sums or even your home. It is not something any of us would do lightly or over a trivial matter but not so with the GMC who take no personal risk and spend our funds.
Like Cicero, I ask Cui bono? "For whose benefit?" 1
This is a disturbing trend when one notes recently a three day hearing was conducted for a doctor already serving a 15 year prison sentence.
It is well understood that there are few winners if natural justice prevails. The exception, of course, are those who enjoy the gravy train, which is becoming ever richer and distasteful!
1. "Cicero: Pro Sex. Roscio Amerino". thelatinlibrary.com.
Competing interests: No competing interests