Alison McDermott - She/her

This is a brilliant summary of my sickening experience when you realise there is no protection for whistleblowers. Corruption, lives lost, public money trashed… I could go on… All of this will continue to happen on repeat until the law actually protects whistleblowers.

@drcmday Fantastic news! Although I do not have a vote as a non-clinician, I absolutely would have voted for Chris Day 100%. He is an amazing bloke as well as being a fantastic advocate for whistleblower. He has supported me in my nuclear whistleblowing case against Sellafield. Congrats.

I have some news; I am running for the British Medical Association Council. If you are a BMA member please vote for me; "I am standing for BMA Council because doctors need representatives who understand how power operates in the NHS - and how decisions made at the top land in reality. I work in A&E, where political and workforce failures translate directly into risk and harm for patients and staff. I do not just understand doctors’ anger about pay, morale and conditions, I live it. Alongside my clinical work, I have spent twelve years pursuing a fiercely contested whistleblowing case and supporting doctors in similar situations. I have seen how employers, regulators and lawyers can combine to silence doctors who speak truth to power or scapegoat those who remain silent. Doctors carry responsibility for patients, yet too often lack power and protection. I have worked closely with the BMA on my own case and have seen it increasingly win these fights for others. These successes matter. They protect patients, defend doctors, and change culture."

@KingTunde_SZN 45283

PAY ATTENTION TO DETAILS Nobody is yet to find the number 👀 What number is in the box? RT Correct answer wins $3,000 Ends 50 hrs

BBC BROKE EQUALITY LAW AND GOT CAUGHT Carrie Gracie spent 30 years at the @BBC. She spoke fluent Mandarin. She ran the Beijing bureau. She was one of four international editors, two men and two women. Then in 2017 the BBC was forced to publish salary data. Gracie looked at what her male equivalent, the North America editor, was earning. He was on nearly double her salary. She had explicitly said equal pay was a condition of taking the China role. The BBC agreed. Then quietly paid her far less anyway. She asked for equal pay. The BBC offered her a raise that still left her below the men. She turned it down. She resigned from the China post in January 2018 and published an open letter telling the licence fee public exactly what their broadcaster was doing. The BBC then put her through nearly a year of an internal grievance process that went nowhere. It took three meetings with the Director-General and the threat of an employment tribunal before she got a public apology and the backdated pay owed to her. The total came to £361,000. She donated every penny to the Fawcett Society (@fawcettsociety), the gender equality charity. She said the fight was about principle, not the payout. A publicly funded institution, legally obligated to follow equality law, paid women less than men in identical roles, got caught, dragged it out for a year, and only coughed up under threat of a tribunal. That is not a pay oversight. That is a policy. Gracie did not ask for a favour. She asked for what she was owed. The BBC made her fight for it like it was a privilege. Sources: @BBCNews, @guardian, @thetimes, @Independent.

The Man Nobody Is Talking About. His Name Is Sir Philip Barton. Buried inside Tuesday's committee testimony, beneath the headlines about constant pressure, bullying and secret job searches, is the detail that may prove the most consequential of this entire affair. It concerns not Olly Robbins, not Morgan McSweeney, not even Keir Starmer. It concerns the man who was there before all of them. The man who said no. The man who then left his post eight months early. Sir Philip Barton was the Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office when Peter Mandelson's appointment was announced in December 2024. He was, in other words, the most senior civil servant in the building at the precise moment the machinery of state was being directed to place a man with documented links to Russia and China into the most sensitive diplomatic posting in the Western alliance. What Robbins told the committee on Tuesday is this. Barton pushed back. When the Cabinet Office argued that vetting Mandelson was unnecessary, that a peer and Privy Councillor did not require developed vetting, Barton refused to accept it. He insisted that vetting was a requirement. He had to be, in Robbins's own words, very firm in person. He also voiced reservations about the appointment to Jonathan Powell, the National Security Adviser, reservations that were noted and not acted upon. He was worried, Robbins suggested, about exactly the same reputational risks that had been detailed to the Prime Minister before the appointment was announced. Then Sir Philip Barton left his post. Eight months before his tenure would otherwise have concluded. The question Richard Foord put to Robbins on Tuesday was the right one. Why did Barton's tenure end early? Robbins said he did not know. He suggested ministers may have felt it was time for a change. That answer is not an answer. It is the absence of one. Consider what the timeline now shows. A senior civil servant pushes back against the appointment, insists on vetting when the Cabinet Office wants to bypass it, raises reservations with the National Security Adviser, and departs eight months ahead of schedule. His replacement arrives to find the appointment already treated as a fait accompli, the vetting process under constant pressure from Downing Street, and the question of outcome entirely subordinate to the question of speed. If Barton was removed because he stood in the way of this appointment, then Robbins was not the first civil servant sacrificed to protect it. He was the second. And the question of who else was moved aside, overruled or silenced in the months between December 2024 and the moment the security services finally said no, becomes the most important question this affair has yet produced. Starmer sacked Robbins for following the rules. The Foreign Affairs Committee will now call Barton to give evidence. What he says will either confirm what the timeline already suggests or provide an alternative explanation that the evidence does not currently support. There is a pattern here that goes beyond process failure. Process failures are random. They point in different directions. What this affair has produced is a series of events that point consistently in one direction. Officials who comply are retained. Officials who push back depart. The security services are bypassed. The vetting is treated as an administrative inconvenience. And the one question nobody at the top of this government will answer is why this appointment, this man, this post, mattered so much that every obstacle was removed to make it happen. Barton apparently asked that question. He left eight months early. The country deserves to know why.

@davidyelland Wonderful. Just wonderful.

Don’t know her, but she made me cry.

زوجة الطبيب حسام أبو صفية تناشد العالم التدخل العاجل لإنقاذ حياته مؤكدة أن "ذنبه الوحيد إنقاذ حياة الڄـݛحى" ، ومطالبةً بتحرك عاجل قبل أن يفقدوه داخل السجن. لا تجعلوه خبر عابر ، تحدثوا عنه. رجاااااء انشر شارك علق لعلى كلمتك تفك أسر الدكتور حسام ابو صفية🫶

خطر حقيقي يهدد حياة الدكتور البطل #حسام_أبو_صفية .. ​أنباء صادمة ومتداولة عن إدراج اسم الطبيب الذي رفض ترك مرضاه في غزة ضمن قائمة الأسرى المهددين بالإعدام.🥺😭😱 لا تتجاهل 🥺🥺 من أجل الإنسانية لا تتوقف عن النشر 🙏 والمشاركة.🇵🇸💔💔 #أوقفوا_إعدام_الأسرى #انقذوا_الأسرى

It has been brought to my attention that someone has suggested reports from the defence of Lucy Letby have been, or will be, shared with me. I wouldn't have known this because I don't follow anyone on this platform, I only see things when they are cited by others. Firstly, no one contacted me to ask whether or not this is the case, and the claim is based on what can generously be described as baseless speculation. As mentioned previously, I have received thousands of emails from people who believe Lucy Letby to be innocent and / or that the case is a miscarriage of justice. I am still yet to receive one from anyone that believes Lucy Letby to be guilty. It seems to me that if you're going to make such extraordinary claims, particularly when you have styled yourself as a supposed fact-checker, that you might make the most rudimentary attempt to confirm whether or not there is any basis for them. But considering that the foremost journalist clinging desperately to the conviction is Liz Hull, and she rarely makes any effort to contact a primary source (I would have written 'never', but she did actually contact Sir David Davis the other day), perhaps this isn't hugely surprising. Secondly, I am not affiliated with the defence in any way. Thirdly, I am not sure why anyone – albeit the person making the claim is someone of limited life experience – would believe that reports would be shared with me. Even if they did believe this, I am equally unsure why anyone would think that I would examine them via a social platform. However, I will say this: the distaste that the elitist legal system has for public scrutiny is equally distasteful for me. If I did have reports available to me, which I do not, then I should absolutely be able to share this information, without those at the apex of the stuck-in-the-mud, out-of-touch, condescending criminal justice system concluding: “we don't look kindly on that kind of thing”. I don't look kindly on the fact that everything the legal system does is shrouded behind a veil of secrecy, and anyone that doesn't dutifully submit to this noxious culture is viewed as a dangerous insurgent. The whole system is funded by public revenue, yet no facet of it considers itself to be publicly accountable. Nothing is recorded or made public. We have to beg and borrow to get hold of the transcripts (I would consider stealing them if this was logistically possible!). Cheshire Police have been contemptuous of the idea that they should face public scrutiny. This equally applies to the Crown Prosecution Service, the courts themselves, and the judiciary. This is seemingly emblematic of the entire attitude that is enshrined within them, namely this is OUR system in which we preside over YOU. The criminal justice system should be transparent and accountable to the public that funds it. Anyone that celebrates the fact that it blatantly doesn't fit this remit is part of the problem not the solution. Please don't delude yourselves that by siding with the system you're somehow part of the establishment. Let me avail you of that notion - you're not! Finally, if you're going to make stuff up about me in the future, which I'm sure you will, at least make it plausible. #LucyLetby #LucyLetbyInnocent

NHS SPENT £857K PROVING THEY WERE WRONG Dr Kevin Beatt @drbeatt built Croydon University Hospital's @croydonhealth cardiology unit from nothing. Then he did something the NHS apparently cannot tolerate. He told the truth. He warned about dangerous equipment, nursing shortages, and bullying. Nobody acted. In June 2011, a senior nurse was suspended mid-procedure without his knowledge. A 63-year-old man, Gerald Storey, died on the table. The coroner confirmed the suspension contributed to his death. Beatt raised the alarm formally and repeatedly. The Trust sacked him for gross misconduct. Reported him to the GMC. Issued a press statement the tribunal later found was deliberately designed to destroy his reputation. Then they spent public money trying to make it stick. The Employment Tribunal ruled against them. Landmark judgment. No misconduct. No ulterior motive. Unfairly dismissed for whistleblowing. The Trust appealed. Lost. Appealed again. Lost. Tried the Supreme Court. Refused. Final bill to taxpayers: £857,110 in compensation. Plus years of legal costs. Jeremy Hunt @Jeremy_Hunt, Health Secretary at the time, called it a matter for the trust's board and walked away. The managers responsible faced zero consequences. This is the template. @NHS trusts have learned that burying a whistleblower in legal processes, exhausting their finances, and waiting long enough means most people give up. Dr Beatt did not give up. He won. And it cost him everything anyway. If institutions will not protect the people who protect patients, we have to. Share this. Because somewhere right now a doctor is deciding whether it is worth the risk to speak up. Sources: Employment Tribunal: Beatt v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust [2014] Court of Appeal: [2017] EWCA Civ 401 The Guardian / Croydon Guardian / ITV News

Hussam Abu Safieh is one of the Palestinian doctors (among 95 other doctors) that will be killed by the “Israeli death penalty for hostages.” Do not let them murder him. Repost this.

RETWEET if you stand with Pope Leo against Donald Trump!

NHS DESTROYED A DOCTOR FOR TRYING TO SAVE LIVES Dr Raj Mattu was a cardiologist at Walsgrave Hospital in Coventry. In 2001 he noticed something that should have been blindingly obvious to management: cramming five patients into a cardiac ward designed for four was killing people, because essential services like oxygen were being cut off. He went to the @BBC. He named the problem. He tried to save lives. Management's response was to suspend him in 2002 and then bury him under a deluge of around 200 complaints to the General Medical Council. Not one. Not ten. Two hundred. Every single one was rejected. A tribunal later found that a senior manager had openly said: "Don't worry, as far as Raj is concerned, we are not worried about a parking ticket, we want to get him off the road completely." The suspension arrived within weeks. @sharmilaxx Dr Mattu suffered detriments on more than 25 separate occasions. NHS even hired private investigators to try to discredit him. A 2005 inquiry chaired by Andrew Stafford QC recommended he be reinstated. Management ignored it. He was finally dismissed in 2010. The tribunal process ran for six months and produced a 400-page judgment. The total legal cost to the @NHS is estimated at over £11 million in taxpayers' money. Coventry Live All to silence one doctor who told the truth. He was eventually awarded £1.22 million in compensation. The managers who orchestrated the campaign mostly remained in post. David Loughton, the CEO who oversaw the whole thing, is now a CBE. I know a fraction of what Dr Mattu went through. In 2024 I was the target of 3 fabricated complaints. Three. And even that was enough to make me understand exactly how this weapon works. You do not need evidence. You just need volume, institutional backing, and the willingness to grind someone down for as long as it takes. Dr Mattu said it best himself: the people who lost out most were the patients. For 13 years the trust prevented him from looking after them. And by doing so, they sent a message to every other NHS whistleblower: this is what happens if you speak up. Nothing has changed. Source: @guardian / @BBC / @lexology / @sharmilaxx

**SHARE THESE PICS BEFORE THEY DISAPPEAR **

Retweet if you believe Netanyahu is a war criminal.

This video of Israel soldiers casually throwing what appears to be a Palestinian youth off from the roof of a building has shocked the world. Look how comfortable they walk away after throwing the youth to his death. As if they have done it 100s of times before.

Boycott companies linked to the Zionist colony.

People interested in the Lucy Letby case might find it informative to watch these two YouTube videos. youtube.com/watch?v=Y2Ed56…

The Overturn makes you lose faith in the justice system. This new series examining shocking miscarriages of justice in UK law is gripping – and depressing, writes Miranda Sawyer. bit.ly/3NuXjZh

Surely this cannot be correct? The more I hear about the court system the more disturbed I become.