Beth

👇🎞️BIG PHARMA corruption & WHY other BLACK BOX drugs prescribed for funds needs EXPOSED = deliberate damage of human ‘Guinea pigs’ bodies for profit !! 🤒🤫💊💊🤕😵‍💫💀=🧑🏼‍🔬🧑🏽‍💻🤑🤑🤠🏖️ bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod…

You might have heard of Maggie Oliver. She's a former Greater Manchester detective who, in 2012, was ordered to abandon her investigation into the systematic rape of children in Rochdale, and decided she would rather resign her warrant card rather than do so. Maggie, as that would imply, is one of the good ones. I constantly ask how our police can consider themselves worthy of the badge if they are not willing to return the badge rather than commit injustice in its name. Maggie did just that; she was asked to cover for criminals, so she told the shirts to stuff themselves and handed back her commission. She won a small but consequential victory in the High Court on Friday. Mr Justice Kimblin granted her foundation a full judicial review of whether the British state has actually done anything about the recommendations it accepted, in 2022, at the end of a seven-year inquiry into the institutional cover-up of decades of child sexual abuse. Maggie Oliver is one woman. She has no political party behind her and no standing in Whitehall. She has no peerage, no chambers, no billionaire foundation footing her bills. She was ordered, by senior officers, to drop her investigation into a network of men who were raping children in industrial quantities in her city, because of the demographics to which those men belong made the whole thing a bit awkward. Fourteen years on, she has done what nobody else in this country has been able to. She has hauled the British state into open court to answer for the choice it made, over four years and under two governments, to hold a seven-year, £200 million inquiry into the institutional cover-up of child abuse and implement, deliberately, none of that inquiry's recommendations. The Home Office accepted those recommendations in 2022. So did the Department for Education, the police inspectorates and the Crown Prosecution Service. And then nothing happened. The recommendations sat. The departments restructured. Ministers rotated. The girls and women who had given evidence aged. More such operations continued around the country, while the men who had run the previous set of them either walked free, left the country, or drew their own pensions. The state, in the manner of every institution Tony Blair ever built, had decided that the writing of the report was the action, and the doing of the report could be handed off to history. That is what Maggie Oliver has now forced into court. And the political class knows what that means. The Home Secretary has not commented. The Prime Minister has not commented. The candidates jockeying through the post-Starmer Labour succession have, at the time of writing, failed even to speak her name, as though they know that, if they do, lightning will flash in the sky and they'll be turned into a pillar of Tesco's-own-brand dishwasher salt. They are silent because they recognise, accurately, that the answers a judicial review will produce - to the question of why their inquiry's findings were treated as ornamental - will, should, must end the careers of every official who was supposed to act on them and did not. That councillors and councils, mayors, indeed entire political parties, will be caught under ultraviolet light and shown for their guilt. It's time a government did what the British state has spent twenty years declining to do. Take on institutional failure. Name the institutions that failed, in public, on the record. Name the officers and officials who covered it up, and the officers and officials who pressed for the cover-up too. Prosecute them under the standards that any other employee of a public organisation defrauding the public would expect to face. The recommendations the inquiry produced must be implemented in full, alongside whatever further measures a second look at the evidence then demands. There will not be another inquiry into the inquiries. There will be the verdicts. Maggie Oliver is one of the bravest people in Britain. She has earned, by her own resignation and by fourteen years and a foundation and a court case carried on her back, the right to expect from a future British government the simple thing that ought to have happened in 2014, in 2016, in 2018, in 2022 and in every other year of this national disgrace. She has not yet been given it; we have not yet been given it. But it will be given, and soon.

DR CHRIS DAY TOLD THE TRUTH. THE NHS DESTROYED 90,000 EMAILS. THE JUDGE CALLED HIM A LIAR. I have been following this case for some time. What you are about to read is not an allegation. It is a matter of documented public record. Dr Chris Day @drcmday is a locum emergency medicine doctor who blew the whistle on unsafe ICU staffing and avoidable deaths at a South London NHS hospital. That was 2013. It is now 2026. The case is still running. The first four years were spent fighting a legal argument designed to strip all junior doctors in England of whistleblowing protection. Around 54,000 doctors. Chris privately funded that fight through the Court of Appeal, backed by 5,000 crowdfunders. The government did nothing. He won. Then, while he was giving evidence under oath, cost threats were made against him and his legal team. Because he was mid-testimony, he could not have frank discussions with his lawyers. The case settled in 2018. None of the substantive issues were ever heard. Around half a million pounds of public money spent, a similar amount from crowdfunders, and everything buried. The NHS then told the press and MPs that no cost threats had been made and that the case had nothing to do with ICU staffing. The Financial Times and the Telegraph both reported the cost threats in detail. Neither story was ever legally challenged. The case returned to court in 2022. Jeremy Hunt appeared as a supportive witness. During that hearing, a Trust director got up at 5am, went to a hospital, and deleted 90,000 emails before they were due to give evidence. They admitted it in an unsigned statement and then refused to be cross-examined on mental health grounds, without medical evidence. The judge accepted that. The NHS won. Multiple EAT judges declined to engage with the written evidence. One called Chris a liar in open court, despite his account being backed by his own barrister's written record, two MPs, and two national newspapers. Several judges volunteered unsolicited positive comments about the barristers involved. No recusals followed. Last August, Chris wrote formally to Lord Fairley, President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, placing on record his view that the handling of his case meets the definition of institutional corruption from the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel Report. That definition is precise. Concealing or denying failings to protect an organisation's reputation is itself institutional corruption. The case is now before the Employment Appeal Tribunal again in 2026, this time on the wasted costs claim against @HillDickinson, the same firm that spent four years using public money to argue junior doctors out of whistleblowing protection, while withholding the very contracts that proved their argument wrong. @Channel4News covered this case in March 2026. Two MPs have called for a public inquiry. The question Chris asks is simple. If there is not a single false sentence in his witness statement, and if the evidence behind his account has never been successfully challenged in court or in the press, what exactly is the basis for calling him a liar?

DISGUSTING‼️PEOPLE WHO were wronged by government greed & profits - still waiting for justice !! Also questions the latest ‘ fraud, error & overpayment’ legislation - can ANY government DATA & CONTROL be trusted⁉️= NO⁉️

(1/2) ITV News Meridian has spoken to a dozen women who say family courts are being used as weapons for abusers. Our founder @DrProudman speaks to ITV about her experience as a family law barrister, where family courts have become a “playground” for abusers.

NHS SPENT £5,000 OF PUBLIC MONEY A DAY ON LAWYERS TO SILENCE A WHISTLEBLOWER Dr Kevin Beatt (@drbeatt) was one of the most respected cardiologists in the country. He pioneered heart attack treatment at Croydon University Hospital (@croydonhealth). And then a senior nurse was suspended mid-procedure, without his knowledge, and a 63-year-old patient named Gerald Storey died on the table. Dr Beatt was left for 20 minutes with a nurse who had no basic familiarity with the procedure. He called the decision to suspend the nurse "the most overtly reckless act" he had witnessed in his career. A coroner later agreed the suspension contributed to the patient's death. So Dr Beatt did what any responsible clinician would do. He raised concerns. Staffing shortages. Appalling equipment. Bullying of junior staff. Ageing radiation machinery putting patients and staff at risk. He kept raising them. For years. In September 2012 he was sacked for gross misconduct. The tribunal in 2014 was not impressed. It found there was "no evidence" Dr Beatt had an ulterior motive, that "extremely damaging and entirely false" allegations had been directed at him, and that a misleading press statement about his dismissal had been "calculated and was likely to cause damage to his reputation." Not only did Dr Beatt win, but the tribunal determined he had not contributed in any way to the dispute. That is unusual. Employers almost always manufacture some conflict to argue contributory fault. The trust's response? Appeal. Then appeal again. Then try the Supreme Court. The whole thing only ended when the Supreme Court refused the trust leave to appeal a Court of Appeal decision in Dr Beatt's favour. He was eventually awarded £857,110.25 in compensation, including £25,000 for injury to feelings and £7,500 in aggravated damages. During all of this, the GMC continued to investigate him even after he was exonerated by the tribunal. He struggled to find work. His career, his reputation, his finances: all ground down by the very institutions that were supposed to protect patients. In 2015 Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt (@Jeremy_Hunt) was criticised for refusing to intervene, saying it was a matter for the local NHS Trust, which at the time was spending £5,000 a day on legal fees to fight the man who tried to save a patient's life. The trust later said it was "pleased" to have the matter concluded. They also said they "strive to ensure staff feel supported to raise concerns." Genuinely extraordinary stuff. Dr Beatt described what happened to him in his own words: "What they do is, if things have gone badly wrong, instead of saying things have gone badly wrong, they try to cover it up." A landmark case. A destroyed career. A dead patient. And an NHS trust that kept fighting right up until the highest court in the land told it to stop. Sources: The Guardian @guardian Croydon Guardian @croydonguardian ITV @ITV Dr Minh Alexander @minhalexander East London Lines @EastLondonLines Inside Croydon @insidecroydon

Self-employed disabled people are waiting nearly two years for the Department for Work and Pensions to even begin working on their Access to Work application if they are seen as a “non-priority” case, new figures have confirmed. #AccessToWork #DWP disabilitynewsservice.com/dwp-figures-sh…

In British politics, leaders come and go... however, there's been one constant at Downing Street - Larry the cat

Mother who was victim of domestic violence says family court has allowed manipulation to continue I spoke with @itvnews about family court failures. itv.com/news/meridian/…

Why ????

Dr. Brian Hooker: "Pediatricians are incentivized directly by HMOs, anywhere from $200–$600 per fully vaccinated child. Some make $1M or more annually in bonuses alone." This isn't medicine, it's a profit machine.

Does this explain⁉️Why NI legislation ‘screening’-failed to carry out FULL & PROPER EQUALITY & HUMAN RIGHTS IMPACT ASSESSMENTS‼️Leaving espWOMEN (&Children)easy targets for property & asset grabs‼️Troubles ruling could impact court's definition of a woman bbc.co.uk/news/articles/…

Lady Casey, who is leading an independent review of adult social care, criticised a system that “still behaves as if we are living in 1948 and not 2026” by relying on Unpaid carers to plug gaps in services. #NeededInScotlandToo theguardian.com/society/2026/m…

Journalist who exposed racism, misogyny and bullying at the Judicial Appointments Commission faces £14,000 costs for pursuing freedom of information requests davidhencke.com/2026/05/15/jou…

Sorry, but this is absolutely INSANE. I’ve seen a few of these now. Share this and raise more awareness. Someone needs to help these people.

There's been an increase in the number of older people with health conditions who want to be cared for at home for as long as possible. An Independent care company has told BBC News, they're finding health trusts aren't paying for any new care packages.

Isn’t it amazing that the Gov, being on its knees, is still prepared to impose unpopular & dangerous policies on our people, it’s as if they aren’t really in control and will do their funding master’s bidding no matter the consequences, and I don’t mean the King. Bought & sold.

NHS BILL THAT ABOLISHES THE NHS AND KILLS THE BODY THAT LISTENS TO PATIENTS. The NHS Modernisation Bill just landed in the King's Speech. It abolishes NHS England and pulls its functions directly into the Department of Health and Social Care, handing the Secretary of State direct control over health spending. Ministers running the NHS from their own desks. Reform, apparently. But that's not even the interesting part. The same bill scraps Healthwatch England and all 153 local Healthwatch organisations across England. Healthwatch is the only statutory body in England with a legal duty to collect independent patient feedback and report it to decision-makers. Gone. The Health Services Safety Investigations Body, which investigates patient safety incidents, gets folded into the Care Quality Commission @CareQualityComm. Fewer bodies. Less independent scrutiny. More things pointing back at ministers. The King's Fund @TheKingsFund said: the bill sets out a desire to give more power to patients but in the same breath proceeds to abolish the organisations responsible for studying patient experience independently, with no clear plan for stopping the NHS and ministers from marking their own homework. The Patients Association added they are deeply concerned about the disbanding of Healthwatch England, noting it is currently the only body in England with a statutory duty to listen to patients and ensure that their experiences shape how services are run. Organisations have urged the government to remember the widespread systemic failures, notably the Mid-Staffordshire NHS Trust scandal, that led to the creation of Healthwatch in the first place. The national inquiry that followed in 2012 is a clear reminder that when patients have no voice and there is no robust independent scrutiny, patient safety and quality of care suffer. Healthwatch was created because the NHS couldn't be trusted to listen to patients on its own. Now the government is abolishing it, taking the function in-house, and calling that empowerment. Whistleblowers already know what happens when institutions mark their own homework. The rest of us are about to find out.

👇🎞️😳⁉️What everyone needs to know BEFORE you, a child, elderly or loved ones - become the victim of a ‘ behavioural’ diagnosis, which psychiatrists then try to label‼️ - IT’s OFTEN MORE ABOUT DRUGGING!! For BIG PHARMA CLINICAL DRUG TRIAL FUNDS, INCREASING DOSES & PROFITS !!

An honest conversation and observation about the 2025 Mental Health Act from a front line Psychiatrist who (unusually) isn’t fearful of facing reality. Ps: watch to end. Chair totally gets this is relevant to dangerous and violent patients like Calocane. Not a sweeping generalisation of mentally unwell. #nottinghaminquiry 💛💚

(1/2) We have long been campaigning to prevent the use of unregulated experts in family courts. Children have been removed from loving and safe mothers and placed with abusive fathers under the guise of so-called “parental alienation” by unregulated experts. Anyone can call themselves an expert in family courts. No means to complain. No regulated body.