Congratulations Mary on your retirement. Just in time. In the 90s when we started Multifunding it was a meeting a minute with not enough time for family and patients while medibusinessmen tried to deprofessionalise us !
As a lurker I have often read your interesting postings and am delighted that you will not be leaving the list.
Your comments on the evils of top downness prompts me to hope that some of our list who retire will consider (after having a much needed rest) helping set up bottom up Localism. I have had an interesting couple of years volunteering to do this in a socially challenged area in Kingston (see www.onenorbiton.org.uk)
It's been a very grandparently thing to do and just might be the way to bring back some power to the people.
All the best for the future
Mike D'Souza
Sent from my iPhone
On 28 Mar 2013, at 08:03, Mary Hawking <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Jenny, thanks for the invitation - but I've done my last day in the surgery
> - ever!
> I retire on the 31st, and won't be doing any locum work or keeping a license
> to practice: this latest top-down reorganisation decided me!
>
> It won't stop me being on GP-UK or other lists.. or expressing opinions!
>
> Mary Hawking
> Retiring from NHS on 31.3.13 because of the Health and Social Care Act 2012
> "thinking - independent thinking - is to humans as swimming is to cats: we
> can do it if we really have to." Mark Earles on Radio 4
> blog http://maryhawking.wordpress.com/ , bloglist
> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/4529244/MH%20blog%20list.doc And Fred!
> http://primaryhealthinfo.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/who-knows-what-and-why/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GP-UK [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jennifer Sudell
> Sent: 27 March 2013 07:32
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Cambridgeshire LMC and 111
>
> Mary, come to us in Ozland
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 27/03/2013, at 17:44, Mary Hawking <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> Presumably an injunction applies to the situation, not only the LMC?
>>
>> Is this a super-injunction, if EHI has had to remove a comment that there
>> was an injunction?
>>
>> Has anyone asked the local press what this is all about?
>>
>> And I am trying to envision the circumstances which might apply to any
> sort
>> of injunction taken out by contractors implementing a 111 contract...
>> Does the same company hold any other contracts?
>>
>> Mary Hawking
>> Retiring from NHS on 31.3.13 because of the Health and Social Care Act
> 2012
>> "thinking - independent thinking - is to humans as swimming is to cats: we
>> can do it if we really have to." Mark Earles on Radio 4
>> blog http://maryhawking.wordpress.com/ , bloglist
>> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/4529244/MH%20blog%20list.doc And Fred!
>> http://primaryhealthinfo.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/who-knows-what-and-why/
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: GP-UK [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Julian Bradley
>> Sent: 27 March 2013 00:24
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Cambridgeshire LMC and 111
>>
>> 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
|