Not sub-judice as the date for trial has not been set, which is the start of
proceedings for the purpose of the rules in civil cases.
-----Original Message-----
From: GP-UK [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Julian Bradley
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 11:12 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Hunt in today's Grauniad
What's going on and being done to Junior Doctors is indeed wrong but
a) The matter may be sub-judice, which even if not a legal bar to discussion
in this situation might explain a certain reluctance
b) The normal assumption would be that the NEW contracts an employer can
offer are, so long as lawful in themselves, at the employer's discretion.
His capacity to change the GP contract arises out of anomalies and in some
senses is far more worrying.
All that said I think he is being politically unwise and managerially
bonkers in alienating a whole generation of doctors at the stage of their
careers when it is easiest for them emigrate, change course etc. The
manifesto pledge to run a 7 day NHS was not a pledge to that at the expense
of other people's safety, family life, or pockets. If it was a pledge it
should be fully funded and fully staffed so that people can see their
partners and children and not be financially abused for working at the most
difficult time with the most acutely ill and high risk patients.
However General Practice may have nearly as much responsibility as the Civil
Service and SoS Hunt. If we hadn't shown repeatedly that doctors can be so
easily pushed around then he wouldn't even have tried this. Junior docs are
in very large measure the GPs of the future, and if GPs won't ever stand up
for themselves why believe Junior Docs would do any different.
He is wrong but we need to do better, not just for ourselves but for our
patients and future patients.
J
At 06:55 19/04/2016, you wrote:
>"Hunt was asked by four MPs yesterday to identify the basis of his
>power to impose the contract, but did not do so, simply insisting that
>the secretary of state does have that power and we are using it correctly."
>
>
>That gives me direct echoes of the South African chief of Secret Police
>stonewalling an enquiry, when being asked what provided his powers to
>beat torture and kill simply repeating over and over "I have those powers".
>
>If the argument has dropped to having powers to do anything he can get
>away with then the argument tends to point to rougher means of dispute.
>
>It isn't a good way to run any country, and England hasn't been there
>for a long time.
>
>
>A
|