Ages ago that clever chap Leuty wrote
>> witnesses have for a long time enjoyed immunity from legal 
>> proceedings in connection with the evidence they give. This is a well 
>> established legal principle, and the reason is not to protect the witness 
>> but to serve the public interest that the administration of justice 
>> should not be impeded.
>>     
>
>   
>> Justice Collins has now made it clear that this immunity must also extend 
>> to professional disciplinary proceedings, for exactly the same reason. He 
>> states baldly:
>> "There can be no doubt that the administration of justice has been 
>> seriously damaged by the decision of the FPP in this case and the damage 
>> will continue unless it is made clear that such proceedings need not be 
>> feared by the expert witness."
>>     
And I wrote at that time
> Interesting... drawing a parallel with Dr Jane Doneghan, GP and darling
> of the anti-vaccinationists ...
>
>  Stood up in Court and told a judge that several papers supported her
> arguments. He read them. They didn't. She was obliged to agree with this
> in open court
>
> http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2003/1376.html
> http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/1148.html
>
> "... The judge found this doctor guilty of using "selective quotations",
> of making "unsubstantiated claims", and of "being confused in her
> thinking, lacking logic, minimising the duration of a disease, making
> statements lacking valid facts, ignoring the facts, ignoring the
> conclusion of papers, making implications without any scientific
> validation, giving a superficial impression of a paper, not presenting
> the counter argument, quoting selectively from papers, and of providing
> in one instance no data and no facts to support her claim". It was Dr
> Donegan's evidence that Lord Justice Sedley dismissed as "junk science"
> at the subsequent appeal.
>
> Yet 12 months later, thanks to the flourishing network of
> anti-immunisation parents' groups out there, Dr Donegan's junk science
> is readily available to anyone trying to make informed decisions about
> vaccinations. ..."
> http://www.spiked-online.com/articles/0000000CA6F2.htm 
>
> I see she is not listed in the online medical register, and an almost
> completely unreliable source reports that she is being infvestigated for
> serious professional misconduct.  It will be interesting to see how that
> plays out.
>
>
>   

And it is indeed interesting, and is playing out even now.


Oddly, shortly after remarking on something to do with this on GP-UK,
BT's telephone account records gained the impression that they had been
asked to cease phone service to me.  The investigation by O2 and BT
proceeds, it may seem to be too silly a thing for anyone capable of
getting a job in society's infrastructure to lose that job over, but
people, or at least some people, are weird.


>> As you say, in view of these findings Mrs Clark-Glass should seriously 
>> consider her position.
>>     
> If she takes more than a couple of days over considering it, Prof. Catto should invite her for an interview without coffee and /explain/ her position to her.  
>
>   
So, what is the position of Mrs Clark-GLass, since we are revisiting old
wounds?