For the avoidance of doubt I was not suggesting you withdraw Trefor,
rather that the injunction be withdrawn and we learn the full
facts. As I wrote "keep up the good work".
Trust this clarifies any misunderstanding.
J
At 23:31 26/03/2013, you wrote:
>This is the paragraph that was there for 4 days and then disappeared
>
>" Dr Holden said the chief officers of Cambridgeshire LMC attended the GPC
>meeting yesterday and were asked for a report on NHS 111, but said they
>could not speak about it because they were "under an injunction." They could
>not say who put the injunction in place."
>
>I have had confirmation from several sources that this is true.
>
>I will not withdraw.
>
>Trefor
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: GP-UK [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Julian Bradley
>Sent: 26 March 2013 23:11
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Cambridgeshire LMC and 111
>
>At 22:55 26/03/2013, you wrote:
> >Getting into the [public domain.
> >
> >There is some sort of super injunction but the details are sketchy.
> >
> >I will continue to ask awkward questions.
> >
> >Trefor
>
>Trefor,
>
>Thank you for drawing this to our attention.
>
>I've seen your post on an EHI thread, but there doesn't seem to be anything
>in the article currently visible. Has something been removed?
>
>Clearly we don't want to support defamation in the sense of opinion not
>based on normal good faith, the kind of defamation that might land someone
>before the GMC, but equally it's very hard to see that super-injunctions
>will usually have any proper role in the discussion of NHS services.
>
>111 providers should be in the same situation as GPs - as a profession we
>rather often face totally unreasonable criticism, but there are limits that
>cannot be exceeded even there.
>
>The only way we'll resolve this is with facts.
>
>Do keep up the good work if you can - until they serve an injunction on you,
>or withdraw the whole thing and provide the actual information.
>
>Regards,
>
>Julian
|