I am reposting this from Robert Greens blog, I will be writing a letter. If anyone is outraged about the Hollie, Anne and Robert have been persecuted for daring to defy the authorities by complaining about how Hollie was raped from the age of 6 by a gang of paedophiles in Scotland, could I urge you to show support for this campaign by also sending a letter, thank you.
How You Can Help To Defend Freedom Of Speech
On the 14th November, I am to stand trial at Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire on a breach of the peace charge. Due to the anticipated large number of witnesses, the proceedings are set to last for two weeks.
The terms of my defence will ensure that this trial becomes a test case, not only for the future of the freedom of the press, but also impacts on freedom of speech. I shall stand on the right of a journalist to publish what he believes to be the truth and is in the public interest. My excellent legal team, led by the eminent Frances McMenamin QC, feel that the success of my defence may be enhanced by having letters produced in Court from those who have supported my actions in bringing the Hollie Greig case into the public domain and believe my stance to be justified in the public interest.
Thus, I would be most grateful to anyone who feels that they can support me in this way.
The letters must be hard copies, sent by mail, not email. To be valid, they must contain the address, name and signature of the sender and be addressed in the following manner, to enable me to forward them to my solicitor, Mr Gerry Sweeney, and then onward to be placed before the Sheriff. It should open with "To whom it may concern".
Here is the address,
The Court,
c/o Robert Green
4 Birchdale Road
Appleton
Warrington
Cheshire WA4 5AR
This issue, I believe, is of importance far beyond the parameters of the case itself. It revolves around the concept of openness versus secrecy in our society. It must now be obvious to any reasonable person following the Hollie Greig case that the degree of secrecy involving senior state officials in trying to obstruct and pervert the course of justice by making clandestine agreements behind closed doors is completely unacceptable in any civilised and democratic society.
May I thank everyone who has supported Hollie, Anne and me throughout the campaign and hope that you may be able to help in this regard. The letters do not need to be lengthy, nor particularly detailed. All that is requested is a statement that you support my position before the Court.
6 comments:
Doctors charged with misconduct. Patient's anonymity 'compromised' after article on bulimia
From the archive
Share 31 Oct 1995
THREE doctors involved in an article allegedly identifying a bulimia sufferer with a history of self-mutilation were accused of serious professional misconduct yesterday.
Dr John Eagles and Dr Alistair Palin, of the Royal Cornhill Hospital, Aberdeen, and former colleague Dr Jon Parkin, are accused before the General Medical Council of serious breaches of confidentiality in an article in the Journal of Psychiatry.
The article is said to have identified patient Ms C, a 26-year-old pre-registration doctor said to have drained her own blood in a bid to lose weight.
Counsel for Ms C, Miss Rosalind Foster, said the thrust of the case ''was the very principle of confidentiality and consent'' and the absolute need for patients' anonymity to be preserved.
Dr Eagles, of Binghill Park, Milltimber, Aberdeen, admits submitting a paper on ''bloodletting in bulimia nervosa'' which was published in the journal in February 1993.
Dr Parkin, now registered as of Noel Road, Islington, North London, makes similar admissions.
However, they both deny disclosing information relating to Ms C without first obtaining from her informed consent or without satisfying themselves that it had been obtained.
They also denied the information in the paper enabled Ms C to be identified.
Dr Palin, whose address was given as the Royal Cornhill Hospital, Cornhill Road, Aberdeen, admits he was a consultant psychiatrist responsible for the care of Ms C when she attended as an in-patient and as a day patient in August 1990 and January 1992.
He denies providing information to the other two doctors, knowing that it was to be used by them in preparing a paper for the journal, providing the information without Ms C's consent, and enabling information to be contained in the paper, such that it enabled Ms C to be identified.
The journal article contained detailed information which clearly identified Ms C -- ''not least to herself'', said Miss Foster.
It referred to her age, the fact she was a pre-registration doctor with a history of self harm, and suffering from an eating disorder from the age of 16.
Further, her weight and height were given, a diagnosis of macular degeneration, a history of blood-letting and self harm, together with the drugs she had been given to combat the problem.
A friend of Ms C, who had read an article based on that in the journal in the Aberdeen Press and Journal, had instantly recognised her identity.
She had shown the article to Ms C, causing her ''hurt and harm''.
Miss Foster said the question of consent -- and whether Ms C was capable of giving it -- was also crucial to the case.
General Medical Council guidelines, and guidelines on consent in the British Journal of Psychiatry, had stressed the importance of consent.
It was true to say that some of the material had been published after the submission of the article by the doctors, but this had been merely restating or qualifying ''a long accepted and absolutely fundamental aspect'' of the importance of a relationship with trust, and the fact that it should not be abused.
Miss Foster added: ''The committee may query whether she could have given an informed consent.
''At the very least, the doctors should have asked her to sign a consent form. This is all the more important with a weak and vulnerable patient like Ms C.''
Miss Foster said that, whatever the position was about confidence and consent, the doctors were under an obligation to preserve Ms C's anonymity.
Details in the article, especially in a small community like Aberdeen, were bound to identify her. Indeed, Ms C ''must be well-nigh unique'' in Aberdeen.
The hearing continues.
GMC finds doctors not guilty in consent case
CLAUDIA COURT
+ Author Affiliations
BMJ
Three psychiatrists were found not guilty of serious professional misconduct by the General Medical Council, the body that regulates British doctors, last week in a case that centred on the issue of patient consent and confidentiality (see editorial, p 1240). The complainant had been the subject of a case report submitted by the doctors to a specialist medical journal, and she claimed that the report contained so much detail that she could be identified from it.
The report, which concerned people with bulimia nervosa who bleed themselves, was entitled “Blood-letting in bulimia nervosa” and was published in the British Journal of Psychiatry (1993;162:246-8). The authors were consultant psychiatrist Dr John Eagles and psychiatric registrar Dr Jon Richard Parkin, who were both working at the time at the Royal Cornhill Hospital in Aberdeen. The article also acknowledged thanks to Dr Alistair Palin for “allowing us to report on one of his patients.” Consultant psychiatrist Dr Palin also worked at the Royal Cornhill, and he was the third doctor involved in the hearing.
The complainant, known throughout the three day hearing as “Miss C,” claimed that Dr Parkin had asked to interview her for some research work on blood letting in bulimia. She said that he had also mentioned that he might get a paper out of it, and she had given her verbal consent to certain details of her condition being used for this research. She told the hearing: “I was not bothered at this stage because I trusted these people to portray accurately the facts and to disguise my identity.”
After publication of the article--which also contained case reports of two other patients with a similar set of symptoms and behaviour--a story appeared in the Aberdeen Press and Journal newspaper. This newspaper story was read by a friend of Miss C, who immediately recognised her from the personal details. Miss C then obtained a copy of the British Journal of Psychiatry and read the whole article written by Dr Parkin and Dr Eagles.
The case report on Miss C, as well as describing her as “a 26 year old preregistration doctor,” outlined details of her bulimia nervosa and blood letting and contained information about a rare form of macular degeneration that was affecting her eyesight. It also questioned the authenticity of a particular claim made by Miss C to her doctors.
Miss Rosalind Foster, representing Miss C, said that the particular constellation of her symptoms made Miss C “well nigh unique.”
Miss C told the General Medical Council's professional conduct committee: “I would absolutely not have given the go ahead to the article which appeared. I was very shocked, very angry, very upset. Several things stated in the article were untrue. They were really hurtful and judgmental because they blocked out everything I had based my healing and therapy on because it was based on trust.”
Doctors expressed sorrow
All three doctors appearing before the committee expressed their sorrow at Miss C's distress and acknowledged that close personal friends and health care workers looking after Miss C could probably have identified her from the case report. But they said that details of personality were highly pertinent to psychiatric case reports, and Dr Parkin said that he believed that Miss C had given her verbal consent to his writing a case report on her. He added: “Having gained consent to use details from the interview she had given for the purpose stated, I assumed I would be able to also look at her notes.”
Much of the evidence on behalf of the three doctors was heard in camera because of the intimate details of Miss C's history, which were necessary to the case.
Professor Gerald Russell, an expert on eating disorders and especially bulimia nervosa, was called as an expert witness to the hearing. He said that in his view the article in the British Journal of Psychiatry was original and that all the details given on Miss C were relevant and necessary.
Although the article appeared in February 1993, it was first submitted in June 1991, and a second revised draft was submitted and accepted during the first half of 1992. Professor Russell said: “In those days it was unusual to seek consent from a patient before publication of an article. But the rules have changed so much in the last five years. Now you should obtain a patient's consent. You might show them a draft of the paper and negotiate if necessary if there are sections to which the patient objects.”
Mr Adrian Whitfield QC, representing Dr Eagles and Dr Parkin, suggested to the committee that Miss C was not really complaining about the absence of consent but was complaining about “the way in which aspects of her lifestyle were discussed.” He told committee members that the fact that the article in question had “such a tragic and upsetting effect on Miss C must not form part of your deliberations.” He also asked the committee to consider whether the information “gratuitously or unreasonably permitted identification,” suggesting that it did not.
The committee heard how the issue of consent and anonymity had come to the fore since the article was written in 1991. There had been several updates both of the General Medical Council's guidance to doctors on confidentiality and of the instructions to authors published in the British Journal of Psychiatry.
In reaching its verdict the committee agreed that “the information contained in the paper was such that it enabled Miss C to be identified.” This had not been admitted by any of the three doctors. But the committee considered that the facts of the case were insufficient in the cases of all three doctors to support a finding of serious professional misconduct.
Correspondence
The future role of general adult psychiatrists
Alastair N. Palin, Consultant in Adult Psychiatry/Clinical Director
+ Author Affiliations
Royal Cornhill Hospital
I was delighted to see that Dr De Silva has further developed his interest in working with Primary Care colleagues (Psychiatric Bulletin, 2003, 27, 326-327) having previously worked in our service in Grampian many years ago, which is fully committed to working with Primary Care, mainly in a liaison consultation model, but also with a clear attachment of specialist services such as outreach and assertive outreach and core primary care aligned mental health teams.
I and many colleagues from all disciplines have worked in this way for over 10 years, holding regular clinics within general practice and regular liaison meetings with primary care colleagues, including joint assessment where necessary. In my opinion, the outcome of this approach has been to dramatically reduce our need for in-patient provision to well below the recommendations of the College (e.g. we will shortly have 23 acute beds per 100 000 population in general adult psychiatry), and I have no doubt that this model has allowed early detection and intervention for patients with significant mental illness, both through the education of general practitioners and through their ability to rapidly access services.
From a personal viewpoint, therefore, I cannot support Dr De Silva’s suggestion of a ‘sub-specialty model’ where different psychiatrists are responsible for community services as opposed to hospital services. I fear this does nothing but reinforce the ‘community is good, hospital is bad’ divide, which often continues to pervade the thinking of politicians, users and professionals. Furthermore, I believe that one of the greatest strengths of our current system in Grampian is that consultants are made responsible and accountable for their bed usage and thus are also seen as responsible for ensuring adequate community provision wherever possible.
However, for a variety of reasons, the continuum model, which I believe we have successfully offered in Grampian, unlike other parts of Scotland, over many years is now under threat from a number of different sources. These include local management changes, a continued belief from the Scottish Executive that community mental health services are in some way completely separate from hospital mental health services, and thus can be aligned with social care and other services, and from the new Mental Health Act in Scotland, which from 1 April 2005 will undoubtedly push consultant psychiatrists into much more of a pure secondary care situation. It has the potential to completely exclude the general practitioner from the detention process and emphasises repeated appeal against detention in the form of Tribunals.
This may lead to the situation that Dr De Silva describes under his joint working model, in which the consultant psychiatrist has a caseload of a low number of complex, often dual diagnosis patients. Yet I fear for many psychiatrists such as myself that this will be a retrograde step, which will be at the detriment of the very close links that we have achieved with primary care through our aligned services. It will make it much harder for us to work with general practitioners in an educational way, to offer early intervention and adequate management to patients with a variety of psychiatric conditions, and thus to continue to limit our usage of acute psychiatric beds to which admission should be seen as part of an ongoing continuum of care, led by the responsible consultant psychiatrist rather than being seen as a separate process that continues to reinforce the unhelpful hospital v. community divide.
Dr Silva was the one who was involved in Maurice Kirks case, I remember his name because I wrote to him about Maurice and he wrote back to me! I forwarded the letter to Maurice.
29th September 2011
To whom it may concern,
I am a survivor of the Staffordshire Pindown child abuse, and have, like Hollie Greig, been persecuted for trying to tell people about the abuse and woeful neglect I suffered whilst in the “care” of the local authority. Because of my own dreadful experiences I can fully understand what Hollie and Anne Greig have had to endure, and am full of admiration for Robert Green’s determination to bring the people who have raped Hollie Greig and then tried to cover up the crime by persecuting herself and her mother.
The use of malicious vindictive persecution on anyone who tries to blow the whistle on institutional abuse has got to stop. It is completely pointless to try to stop whistle blowing by this method, all that happens is that people get more outraged, it fans a flame of rage, and, what is even more dangerous, ridicule and contempt for the justice system and Government authorities, which we all need, unless we want to descend into chaos and lawlessness. The best way, in fact, the only real way to stop whistle blowing is to deal with the crimes committed that the whistle is blowing for, just deal with criminality, don’t persecute good people.
I pray to God that sanity and humility will preside in Stonehaven in November as Robert Green’s ridiculous breach of the peace case is being heard. We Pindown survivors are amazed that the case against Robert Green was ever brought at all, it really does seem ridiculous when we consider the massive struggle us Pindown survivors have to get the police to take any of the people who abused us to court.
Yours faithfully,
Barbara Ann Richards aka Zoompad (Author of “Tip”)
Post a Comment