Politicians and USA's President elect Donald Trump

http://www.danas.rs/danasrs.1.html

Following election of Donald Trump to USA Presidency Belgrade's newspaper "Danas" (Today) published a cartoon above. It depicts leading Serbian politicians.

Some of Belgrade's cafes and restaurants offered free drinks to those who knew the passwords regarding the future president of USA.

There are people who are very hopeful that finally, somebody who is a USA president would recognise what really happened in former Yugoslavia that led to civil war and much suffering. Many hope that Kosovo would not be seen as independent state but as part of Serbia it has been for many centuries.

Mr Trump is not shy to recognise jihad. Serbs do know about jihad and the horrid consequences for them. We do not know if Mr trump was informed about the pacts made between Catholic Church and Islamic leaders decades before and some since civil war in Yugoslavia on mutual cooperation. Before the pacts were signed emissaries established common ground:

a) their position regarding women (yes, the troublesome majority of people)

b) homosexuality

c) contraception.

No wonder Catholic church is sceptical of Donald Trump. He wants to make things better but as one Catholic bishop said poverty and misery is good for church. Lots of children means poverty and all sorts of problems for the states with large young populations. But young are brave and make the type of soldiers that adults do not. Some acquire wealth through wars but not necessarily children who fight in them.

Sasa Aleksic creates cakes honouring great artists

Wow! Serbian baker makes spectacular cakes. See photo above.

Judges as FRIENDS OF THE PEOPLE?

Judges are there to interpret the law in the cases before them. This does mean that there are almost always people who are losers and how they cope with that differs. Some get angry (while denying fear of their perceived inferiority). There are those who want instant gratification, like psychopaths who may be attracted to positions of power such as in Parliament, doctors' surgery, business firms or law firms. Reading the judgement takes time and it delays instant gratification. Thinking also takes time. Considering other people also requires various brain centres to be functioning such as those psychopaths have in smaller sizes. 

Liberal elite is the term given in frustration of not being of the thinking kind. It is accepted that some people are slower than others and need more time to think things through. And where can one find such people? And is it not true that British people have been lied to and they still failed to remove from power those who lied to them? The judgement is not for or against BREXIT but about due process.

Governments do break laws as do their institutions. This happens for a variety of reasons, sometimes it is due to the desire to be popular. Newspapers need to be popular so people would buy them. One can whip up hatred against the vulnerable (such as foreigners or minority) and use vulnerable people (not so smart ones) to be the agents of the hate. BREXIT is something that psychonalysts would have no trouble dissecting. What is interesting is how one deals with terrified people. That to some extent depends on how much they would agree to the necessary measures. But a member of public is not in a therapeutic relationship and neither are most politicians. Most people in UK are blessed with free libraries and Internet but that requires recognition of fear in the first place before one can act on it i.e. be responsible and search for the clever ways of dealing with one's anxiety.

STEP 1: Oh,I recognize that feeling: I am afraid. I do not like it

STEP 2: I am not rubbish. I can cope. I shall face up to it

STEP 3: How could I break it into smaller manageable steps

The path to responsibility i.e. the ability to respond does involve recognition of one's feelings and needs. The process of victimisation, as here of the judges, is classic in that both feelings and needs are disregarded by the perpetrators. If one realised one is afraid it is not something that cannot be dealt with, but some people are too ashamed to admit it to themselves and instead react with hostility. If one has poor self-esteem one is less likely to have the strength to admit they made a mistake. Needs relevant here are so many:

need for self-respect

need for good reputation

need of economic nature

need for fairness and justice as in society in which we live. There has to be perception of this as well.

BREXIT judgement - Conscientious Citizen Gina Miller wins

Photo: BBC

Well reasoned judgement which stops government from doing much damage to the country:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-legal-challenge-statement-full-read-judgement-summary-high-court-theresa-may-article-50-a7395071.html

UK, even with laws prohibiting various crimes (such as racially motivated ones), managed to get away many times due to European institution's(s) laxity i.e. being partial to UK administration.

Following BREXIT referendum where majority of those who voted were against staying in European Union, vulnerable (Europeans) people suffered even more discrimination. Some people were simply killed. Many harassed and damaged in various ways. Europeans of all colours did notice the change in the air. And, yes, there are always some who are in denial.

EU laws provided tiny breaks on nasty people and going forward with Brexit without reference to Parliament would mean laws based on EU laws would be eliminated. Just like that. No discussion of the implications. It took many, many years before British thought about making anti-corruption laws. Yes, government signs a declaration but then leaves it at that.

Human rights as natural instinct of British? Is there any such evidence in people after years of  being subjected to education (for example, religious indoctrination in schools and outside) that eliminates normal sense of justice, accountability and equality as well as being subjected to the agents of the state who fail to enforce the law as they should. See, for example, just what courts did to whistleblowers in UK if you are interested in freedom of speech.

Well, today, there is some hope that at least a number of people are healthy enough in body and mind to fight back nastiness. It is not just one party that changes the law, it is Parliament.

And can one have free market to oneself without others agreeing? No.

European Commissioner exposed in Bahamas leak of offshore company directorship

Oh, well. It would not be news for many who knew of corruption at the EU Commission:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/sep/21/ex-eu-commissioner-neelie-kroes-failed-to-declare-directorship-of-offshore-firm

Here is EC policy on corruption:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52003DC0317

The failure to declare directorship of the company mirrors UK regulator's failure to hold doctors responsible when they fail to declare relevant directorships or committee memberships. No, there is no competition anywhere on incompetence and wilful blindness.

International Consortium of Investigative Journalism has performed a major operation in publishing names of almost two hundred thousand Bahamas based companies with directorships from politicians all over the world in some of those companies. While Consortium claims the company membership is legal and in some cases justified needless to say, questions will be asked by many.

To search data base by the name of person click on the link below:
https://www.icij.org/blog/2016/09/icij-publishes-leaked-bahamas-info-offshore-database

Burkini is offensive to men

There has been a wave of provocations all over the world by, so called, religious clothes. Muslim women burkini wearers in the photo above in south of France are one of the examples.

Politicians have expressed their outrage in some parts of the world while in others exactly the opposite happened. For example, in United Kingdom police were expected to protect and defend the indefensible - not the first, or the last time for poor British police. Police were sent to guard burkini wearers sampling cold North Irish sea:


 while French police had the opposite task to remove them from the beach:

What is burkini?

Burkini is an outfit for women to wear at the beach, or for swimming. It is ugly, uncomfortable and anything but modest as proclaimed by some as the reason for its creation.

Burkini is about some kind of moral superiority of modesty. Except, that it is unacceptable as such. If you are modest you do not go to the world to boast about it. Also as you can see from the photographs the burkini does show the body shape. It draws attention.

While feminist politicians are right that  burkini is expression of women's oppression there is also another element, offensive message to men:  beasts who cannot control themselves. The facts are that billions of men do control themselves.

Physical attacks are now occurring in Europe by Muslim gangs on men, women and children. Gang of women attacked a French woman sunbathing in her bikini in a French park. Adults and children were attacked in a nudist swimming pool by a gang of men in Germany. Many German women were sexually harassed by groups of men.

Fashion changed over time for men and women. Sometimes severe punishments were used on men for wearing the different cut of suit or even colour of civilian dress. Women were attacked too for ridiculous exposure of arm, ankle etc. Oppression of non Muslim origin is old, sometimes no longer existing. However, there are Christian sects which also have strict rules for their people: Amish, for example.

Violence can arise out of denied feelings of inferiority. Many people would look down on migrants, or with suspicion as if to say: they came here for the better life, we are superior. The actual circumstances of immigrants vary and while there may be those who came for improved material standard of living there is a denial of cultural values society aspires to such as equality of opportunity for both sexes and freedom of expression which is non abusive in nature.

There are some immigrants who are reluctant immigrants. They never wanted to live in a foreign country. Their dependency on new country can be hostile and destructive.

Among the reluctant immigrants there are those who adapt very well and make great contribution to culture without any wish to be enslaved (or to enslave others) by religious dogma or religious dress. 

European Court of Justice and religious wear

Finally, after so many deaths in so many countries, a Belgian Court has referred to European Court of Justice for the court's opinion on religious wear at place of work and legal interpretation was given by Advocate General Kokott of the European Court of Justice to Belgian court in a case involving a Muslim's religious wear but it applies across all religions.

Please, read report in Daily Mail:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3617845/Employers-forbid-headscarf-general-ban-place-EU-court-adviser.html

And in full, the opinion of the Advocate General Kokott with references to other legal cases:
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document_print.jsf?doclang=EN&text=&pageIndex=0&part=1&mode=req&docid=179082&occ=first&dir=&cid=652374

For many years some UK lawyers have pretended there was nothing for them to do when in fact there was. When asked by potential client if they could act in the case of religious uniforms some refused to answer the calls or even acknowledge them. Others just took the money to advise no legal action is the best way.

It is British lawyers who refused to ask the British courts to refer to European Court of Justice for the opinion i.e. interpretation of the law. The Treaty on The Functioning of the European Union provides for this. Court can refuse to do it and that is where there is a difficulty for some applicants.

Despite the increased number of deaths associated with the wearing of religious uniforms Department of Health refused to form national policy on work wear exposing patients to deaths and doctors to serious harm: reputational damage, financial as well as social disasters followed.

Of course, European Court of Justice is right: employees may expect that expression of religion needs to be moderated at the place of work and without discrimination.

General Medical Council in UK refused to act in the interests of patients in the matter of religious uniforms. The disciplinary procedures concentrated on the offence taken by the religious not on the public duty to putting patients first. Doctors who raised the issue were hounded to present day with the aim of excluding them from the workforce altogether.

Department of Health has right arm NCAS who even went as far as inventing complaints against doctors who made no clinical errors. They urged innocent doctors to be referred to General Medical Council's disciplinary procedures as a way of protecting fearful politicians and administrators.

GMC even published false information before the disciplinary hearing claiming a doctor did not act in the interest of patients when in fact they already found themselves that there were no clinical errors made by that doctor. Misinformation went unpunished as far as Doctors4Justice is aware.

General Medical Council at one point had a guidance on religious beliefs issued to doctors where Islamic veil was prohibited following campaigning by Conservative MP, but approved of  nun's habit in a systematic religiously biased trial when they repeatedly appointed religious extremists to the disciplinary panels, or plain religious workers in case where religious dress was an issue, The rules of natural justice were also broken by allowing the governing body member to sit on disciplinary panel.

When this discrimination was pointed to GMC by Doctors4Justice, GMC then decided not to prohibit anything in religious wear no matter how many patients died as a result of not being able to trust health and social care workers who wore religious uniforms regardless of unwritten rules in NHS practises. Just like Belgian company G4S whose employee sued them. They, too, initially had unwritten code of dress. Neutrality is important to global company as it would be in health sector in UK.

General Medical Council reappointed a panellist, a Medical Director in a psychiatric hospital, who was directly linked to persecution of an innocent doctor who objected to religious uniforms despite extensive evidence of wrongdoing by the religious worker and his own wrongdoing. Three times reappointed by GMC to judge other poor doctors!!! He also inspected Broadmoor Hospital as a Mental Health Act Commissioner when Jimmy Saville from BBC was abusing children and adults and was given the keys to the hospital wards as a hospital director. He did nothing about this, i.e. an unqualified person being given access to the vulnerable patients, of course. BBC did report on him on that issue in recent times. Again GMC did nothing to investigate as far as Doctors4Justice knows.

Instead, GMC issued a general statement that GMC is different from how it used to be in that some things could never happen again in disciplinary proceedings when it comes to the protection of paedophile doctors at the expense of patients. No comment was made by General Medical Council how they protect paedophile clergy of various religions by colluding in making it harder for patients to trust the service providers who indulge in religious bias and who ignore the human rights as granted by European Union.

Some British lawyers may indulge in calling UK a Christian country but British people think differently and most are not religious. The national identity is, in reality, different from what institutionalised men may perceive and wish for. And, of course, most religious people themselves prefer justice for all which is best provided by neutrality and equality in that.

Watch the film Spotlight on how institutions colluded in USA to cover up abuse by clergy. Available in supermarkets in UK and on Amazon (very fast delivery).

Judge Hall a breath of fresh air in the corridors of justice

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/19/teenager-spared-jail-for-revenge-attack-against-paedophile/Recently, a number of newspapers and Internet websites reported on the case judged by Judge Jonathan Durham Hall in Bradford where a victim of abuse let down by the legal system was treated fairly after she almost killed her abuser. Click on the photograph to read an article in Telegraph.
It is touching to see the justice done in UK. The judge even offered to pay her court fee if the victims was forced to do it.
UK government at present is showing some compassion as PM expected. We hope Judge Hall is treated fairly too in the future because outstanding characters get attacked by social pests even professional ones.
There are victims who do not live any longer and some of them were judges. One was Esther Lynn Cunningham, a victim of one of her teachers. She drunk to forget. Her behaviour in court and at General Medical Council was not understood by her colleagues who punished her instead of helping her.

Dr Morris Fraser paedophile dedication to John Holmstrom BBCR3 paedophile in his book Death of Narcissus

Photo from Marlowe Society Cambridge Shakespeare's Twelwth Night where John Holmstrom was Sir Aguecheek, a fool with a garish sense of dress

Dr Morris Fraser, a founding member of Paedophile Information Exchange dedicated his book to John Holmstrom, an ex BBCR3 broadcaster. Amazon delivered Death of Narcissus with Dr Morris dedication to John Holmstrom "With best wishes Morris". Read on the link below on the journalists findings on John Holmstrom, yet another BBC paedophile, a member of Paedophile Information Exchange.

https://bitsofbooksblog.wordpress.com/2015/05/18/1976-albany-trusts-pie-pal-minutes-of-meetings-and-was-john-of-the-drafting-committee-from-bbcr3/

John Holmstrom wrote a book The Moving Picture Boy Encyclopaedia where the book is described:

John Holmstrom, the literary editor of the Royal Shakespeare Company and a governor of the British Film Institute, spent decades travelling the world to research and write the universally acclaimed book The Moving Picture Boy Encyclopaedia. In doing so he assembled a photographic archive that is, of its kind, without equal in Great Britain. Film historian Paul Sutton showcases hundreds of photographs and posters from the collection, around which he writes a history of this rare part of cinema. Many of the photographs have never before been published. In addition to the stills and posters, the book includes a delightful 67-page scrapbook of Holmstrom's newspaper and magazine cuttings from around the world; and a selection of letters to Holmstrom from former boy actors in Britain, Italy, France, Germany, America, India and Hungary.

John Holmstrom had a number of fashion shops for boys, including Colts in Hampstead, London

A British merchant reports, "In 1965 I started in Hampstead, London, a shop called "Colts," which offered a selection of "the world's best casual clothing" for boys of school age. Colts catered solely for boys' leisure wear, largely imported from France, Holland, Belgium, Germany and the United States. The introduction to our catalog declared: `We're noted for the brilliance and sophistication of our sports shirts, the sumptuous variety of our corduroys, the tough-ness of our jeans, and the shortness of our shorts. The Continent shows us that school-boys don't have to be Just Williams or bedraggled grey mice; they can be quite shapely animals if their clothes give them half a chance'." The catalog shows a range of stylish clothes that were becoming popular in England, including cord jackets, bright polo-shirts, jeans, and suits with mod and traditional styling. There was even an American-style baseball cap--at the time quite novel in England. Colts operated in England between 1965 and 1975, with branches in Hampstead (London), Richmond (Surrey), Guildford, Chester, Bath, Reading, and Brighton. Colts did not do general outfitting and no school or formal clothes, they indicated, however, that "... most of our casuals are elegant enough to hold their own in any company."

In psychoanalysis horse has been interpreted as representing sexuality and one wonders if any of the local analysts worked it out. Did any abuse occurred in these shops?

Dr Vladislav Rogozov and incompetent Department of Health

Daily Mail photograph and read the article by clicking on the photo.


In the summer of 1999 Dr Helen Bright raised the issue of religious uniforms in mental health setting but Department of Health DoH) not only failed to act on her whistleblowing but continued with willful blindness to present day.

DoH has been informed that at least eight more died in Harrow (since their decision to do nothing about prevention) where a uniformed Christian nun was employed as a Community Mental Health Team Leader for four years. Eight more people committed suicide than on average for the area. Research findings resulted in no creation of National policy for workwear in mental health nor adequate revision of the National policy for workwear as applicable to surgical and some medical wards. To present day England has problems with poorly thinking individuals being permitted to rule from DoH. Killing people is acceptable in NHS as it reduces the demand on services, perhaps. Out of sight, out of mind too.

Like a greedy person England wants to have it all. But that is not possible. Accepting religious privileges costs lives. It decreases quality of life for many and over a very long time.

From the psychodynamic point of view, the inadequate persons can become hostile (and greedy) in order to defend themselves from feelings of inferiority. Inadequate administrators attacks can be very successful in causing misery for many and even deaths. Doctors and their patients are sacrificed as are tons of public money raised through taxes which are squandered by the incompetents protecting their ego. For example: " You cannot come to this country and tell me what to do" is not said but it is practised against ethnic minority doctors, (clearly, both Dr Bright and Dr Rogozov are from ethnic minority and therefore, have no freedom of speech). Like Roman slaves surgeons/physicians are expected to be smart, but slaves whose lives are to be disposed off when ego demands. Intelligent people are expected to perform super magic, through silent magic communications, not heard by administrators.                                      

Although, Dr Rogozov worked hard he may have missed it that where he works people are into ghosts and power. Mr Matt Barry, yes, another foreigner had this to say about GHOSTS.

Another behavioural pattern in inadequates is avoidance to deal with relevant issues. Department of Health refused to revise their policy of workwear and the way they produced is biased.

Department of Health suggested false allegations against doctors. In Dr Bright's case they wrote "mental illness" on her pleading letter to them and sent the copy to the incompetent NHS trust management at Northwick Park Hospital so they know how to build up the false allegations against her at GMC (General Medical Council).

Dr Bright had no mental illness but DoH with their friends at GMC relentlessly, to the bitter end, pursued this avenue of psychiatric examinations which revealed no mental illness. When there was no mental illness and independent Assessors at GMC panel protested at the way the GMC disciplinary panel was conducting themselves, then invention was made of disruptive behaviour problem that would need psychiatric monitoring through educational supervision by Consultant Psychiatrist. Dr Bright already had years of experience of being Education Supervisor herself since she was appointed as NHS Consultant. One of the wicked GMC panellists, Dr Gwen Adshead, a lay preacher (did not declare this interest to GMC as required) is now publishing a book on evil. She described her patients at Broadmoor Hospital as unloved and evil. One of her interests was building a private business charging doctors for disruptive behaviour correction by her and her team. Another interest was doing business with NCAS (National Clinical Assessment Service), the right arm organization of Department of Health who invent allegations against doctors and do not assess them when political execution through GMC is faster and effortless. She also sat at The Royal College of Psychiatrists Public Policy Committee when they were asked to discuss the wearing of religious uniforms. The Public Policy Committee was meant to advise the government in their policy making but they refused because to them patients are nothing. The Chief Executive Vanessa Cameron refused to investigate the religious loading of the ethics committee and to comply with Data Protection Act 1998. Of course, if one can support the policy that leads to loss of life, why should not one fail to comply with law too?

So, now we have Dr Vladislav Rogozov, a surgeon in England, from the excellent surgical family. He, like Dr Bright is right in objections to the wearing of religious gear, but the guns are pointed at him. Dr Vladislav Rogozov used workwear policy on hygiene but that is not enough. Now he is suspended by National Health Service Trust. Greed in persecution. Too difficult to look at the intelligent man for some.

Surgeons not only operate but actually, take history from their patients. It is already very hard for them when patients are in pain, want quick resolution, are perhaps, rather irritable too. How does one form good rapport and trust with patients by wearing of religious uniforms which complicate the matters seriously. Read HERE how it sabotages the best efforts. If religious beliefs are private matter why push it in somebody's mind, and in this case the mind of the ill persons? Of course, provocation is the name of the game along with gaining power over others. And those who do not respect the boundaries of private and public victimize others. Sometimes, themselves too. But what good is it?

General Medical Council hearing paedophile Dr Morris Fraser included MP (later Attorney General for England and Wales) and President of GMC

The General Medical Council (GMC) is a regulator of medical profession and a registered charity. They decide if doctor can have licence to practise in UK. GMC can also prevent doctor from working abroad by refusing to issue Certificate of good standing. The latter prevents doctor from registering abroad quite effectively in countries that still believe in UK justice system.

It is known that GMC has protected paedophile doctors such as Dr Morris Fraser by not taking them off the medical register despite court convictions of paedophilia.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/dr_morris_fraser?nocache=incoming-765319#incoming-765319

In contrast, GMC persecuted and erased from the medical register doctors like Dr Helen Bright whose work was to protect victims of child abuse, promote freedom of speech for the patients, educate professionals and create the first residential treatment facilities for the survivors of the abuse. She objected to the wearing of the religious uniforms by mental health workers. Uniforms act as a barrier to trust and development of rapport. Doctors' white coats and nursing uniforms are not worn in mental health workplace in most parts of UK. There is use of nursing uniforms amongst female nurses in Northern Ireland. Some doctors in Northern Ireland said they are 40 years behind UK where uniforms in mental health were discarded about 30-40 years ago.

GMC employed Professor Dora Kohen who did her bit for the regime that employed her by publishing that uniforms are great in mental health. She was GMC's Health Screener. It is of interest that hundreds of doctors died during GMC's investigations over the years. Many committed suicides. Professor Kohen also worked for the Parole Board. According to research many men in prisons suffered sexual abuse. Here is research from another country showing 70% of prisoners have history of being sexually abused in childhood. There are many defects in healthcare of vulnerable men in prison and outside. Professor Dora Kohen published her substandard work in the Journal of The Royal College of Psychiatrists when ex-president of the College was editor. He was once also on Public Policy Committee of the College who refused to discuss the wearing of religious uniforms when they were asked. The response was that it was not in their remit. Anything is in their remit if it is relevant to the improvement of mental health. They have constitution written tot hat effect. Neither doctors nor their Chief Executive bother about constitutional matters. Why should they be bothered when there is plenty of paid work for them? Concern for patients' feelings is "unprofessional" except when it is convenient to "hang" some foreign doctor via GMC. Then language and freedom of expression become important.

Interestingly, at Dr Morris Fraser hearing in 1974 a newly elected MP sat as a Legal Assessor, Patrick Barnabas Mayhew. He later became Attorney General for England and Wales and later Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He is related to late Princess Diana. Legal Assessors are not decision makers at GMC hearings. They advise on legal points relevant to the case. GMC did not publish his advise (nor that of other legal assessors in his hearings) in the record of the hearing as can be seen from the disclosures under Freedom of Information Act 2000 above.

It is known that Princess Diana opened Child Line and banned paedophile Bishop Ball from Highgrove, royal residence where he was a visitor.

According to public records both the Queen and Prince Charles supported Bishop Ball presumably, in the belief that he was innocent but also it is in the interest of power of their sort to go along with religious leaders to gain the power over gullible. Much has been written on the governing of the state and religion and how it does not work in the interest of people.

There is an interview with ex government Chief Whip Tim Fortescue  (1970-1973) Conservative, who stated to BBC that when MPs were involved in scandalous conduct such as that involving trouble with young boys the governing  party helped them because it gave them power over them: they would do whatever they were asked to do from there on. At GMC, similarly, guilty doctors are employed as members of Fitness to Practice Panels because they tow the line GMC gives them. It is a simple prescription known for many years by power players.

Certainly, in Dr Morris Fraser's case, Dr Fraser made promises to GMC of being good but to the contrary carried on abusing children. He abused children when he was a Consultant Child Psychiatrist. GMC accepted that he can continue working in other subspecialty of psychiatry such as that of Old Age Psychiatry as if there were no children in this world outside child psychiatry service.

Dr Morris Fraser was a member of Paedophile Information Exchange to which lawyers including future government ministers gave support, including future health government minister in Labour Party. Paedophile Information Exchange was funded by Home Office.

Department of Health ministers of different political parties repeatedly refused to facilitate freedom of speech for survivors of sexual abuse to current day by refusing to ban religious uniforms in mental health. The current government has poured money into mental health giving special funds for therapy services to those who suffered abuse. But Department of Health always sticks to their practise of providing the national policy of workwear for medical and surgical wards while mentally ill are willfully neglected. They are perfectly aware of the excess morbidity and mortality it causes.

GMC themselves have been aware for more than 15 years of the nastiness of their policy of supporting religious wear in mental health but they are rich and always ready to pull out of the hat another independent inquiry. This GMC did by having a report into doctors and religious belief. They completely ignored excellent submissions by Secular Medical Forum and National Secular Society. Yes, completely. Who pays the piper calls the tune. And walking over the dead bodies is not that hard after a while. Mentally ill who committed suicides in excess numbers are not important to GMC.

There is much wrong with Dr Morris Fraser hearings. In the first hearing there is no psychiatric expertise on the disciplinary panel panel.

There should be separation of executive from the panels but there is not as President sits on the panel. An MP also sits as a Legal Advisor.

The psychiatric brotherhood that appeared in later hearings defends Dr Morris Fraser giving him many chances to stay on the medical register.

One presumes that Dr Morris Fraser was a member of the old boy network of paedophiles that protected their members and GMC became part of their protective mechanisms. One of the implications of paedophile protection was that it became the tradition of corruption that carries to present day in various forms. For example, GMC refuse to correct their mistakes and rehabilitate those doctors they wronged. GMC was asked to do so by doctors repeatedly. Not only do they refuse to correct the mistakes but also threaten innocent doctors who asked for it and who have unblemished record before GMC.

In general, in UK, protection of paedophiles killed many people subsequently: men who committed suicides because nobody would help them, people died because good doctors were prevented from working by GMC who erased them from medical register.

There were financial problems for many unrelated people including banks who could not get their money because doctors could not work and pay their mortgages etc.

Families and friends despaired because their efforts to help good doctors led nowhere while GMC protected the bad ones.