Clemmie Hooper Facing Midwifery Misconduct Hearing

[Nedmund]

I've not yet seen any other threads on this.

It's not yet clear why there's a heating but it would be interesting to read the decision by the Nursing and Midwifery Council when it's posted online. The hearing ends 8th March.

I'm wondering if the racism she trolled with played out in her work?

You keep mixing up safeguarding and retribution.

Your posts keep excusing / minimising / dismissing the issue of how black women are treated by the medical profession and specifically during pregnancy and birth, as proven by statistics.

Let's say a male doctor interviewed a women who was a victim of sexual assault by medical professionals, then he was found to have written that she had been 'crying rape' / 'playing the rape card'.

Would you honestly say that there was no proof he treated female differently to male patients in real life / he just needs some training / male patients would be missing out on a doctor so they need to be centred in the discussion and it would be wrong for them to miss out just because women might be uncomfortable or potentially treated poorly?

I hope not. But based on your previous posts maybe you would.

I think you're being ridiculous. See my post above for why.

No one made this a black woman v white women matter. Some posters suggested that white women had no right to comment on the case; they certainly do because the loss of experienced midwives affects women regardless of skin colour. If that makes it a black v white issue in your eyes there's something off with your perception.

It's abundantly obvious that CH's contribution towomen's healthcare has to be given due weight. There are no complaints from colleagues or patients of any skin colour. That must also factor in. You have no evidence of any kind that CH has mistreated or failed any patient so the hysterical examples listed by you are difficult to map onto this scenario.

As I've said, see my earlier post.

How fitting you use the misogynistic insult 'hysterical'.

Your analogy doesn't bear any relation to what's taken place here. It's such a stretch I can't compare the two at all. The level of risk in that situation relative to possible risk to patients of ch are not comparable. Ch didn't make such a comment on the interviewee's medical notes and there's nothing to suggest that she would.

People have different views, hardly a shocker. I don't think you'll change anyones minds by repeatedly dismissing what they are saying and attempting to come over as superior. None of us are involved in the decision and rightly so.

@Everyonesinvited

I really hope you have no involvement in any safeguarding decisions in any way.

Look up the misogynist roots of the term 'hysterical' to see why you might want to reconsider it if you want a reasonable discussion, especially about women's health of all things.

I'll leave it there.

I would disagree with this. Midwives are a tight group who discuss their patients and know each other well. They help each other. If one midwife was singling out a type of mother for different treatment I think it would quickly become apparent to her colleagues.

Well aware which is why I think it behoves you to be rational. You want power? Be rational.

Then I'm sure the feeling would be mutual and you could request someone else. I didn't like a midwife based on her attitude to a disability I had. I simply requested another.

You have no evidence of any kind that CH has mistreated or failed any patient so the hysterical examples listed by you are difficult to map onto this scenario.

As I've said, see my earlier post.

Christ on a bike, I don't even know where to start with this gaslighting bullshit, so I'll keep it specific.

Please point out my 'hysterical examples.'

And yes, we can see your earlier posts. All of them. I'm not sure they paint the picture of intelligent, well-informed right thinking you think they do.

Well, quite. She's been in post for three years without a problem! What on earth has been going down if she's now considered unfit to work? Where are the complaints and case files documenting concerning attitudes and behaviours in the workplace? Do we even have one?

Ref your analogy equating this with a doctor recording 'crying rape' on the medical notes of an assaulted patient. Total straw man.

The tribunal will not agree with you. But perhaps you think you're the only right thinking person out there and should be the tribunal all on your own. It certainly looks that way.

I didn't say I couldn't? Honestly you're excessively defensive, maybe take a break from a message board where people are free to post their differing views.

Ref your analogy equating this with a doctor recording 'crying rape' on the medical notes of an assaulted patient. Total straw man.

That was my analogy, not the other poster's.

And I didn't mean that the doctor in the hypothetical example had written that in the medical notes. I meant that he had written that on a forum like tattle, like CH did, which is why it was an analogy.

Well aware which is why I think it behoves you to be rational. You want power? Be rational.

What a bizarre thing to say. I don't want 'power', I want adequate safeguarding.

The fact you think this is about 'power' is very telling. Your motivations are to win an argument, not to discuss rationally and with the safeguarding of patients at the centre.

Doesn't matter how 'tight' a group midwives are (and I have to wonder are they? All of the time? Everywhere?). There are still very lengthy periods of time where a midwife will be alone with their patient. When I delivered my children I only ever had the one midwife with me.

What a terrifying world you would have us live in, where people would be forced to repeatedly declare a view they had expressed in error and subsequently repented of, as if they were an enemy of the state, with no evidence of this view in sight in their daily interactions.

You should read what it was like in China around forty years ago. Would you support ritual shamings and community accusation sessions too? Dropping a caste, perhaps?

You may say this is about safeguarding but there are plenty of posters here who would be frothing at the mouth with indignation if she dared to open an account and publicize a freebie. They just don't want her to exist anymore.

There's more than one kind of dangerous prejudice out there.

Not my experience! I think it would quickly be apparent and picked up on.

I'm sorry to read about these appalling losses. I hope the investigation into CH's practice does ensure there is no evidence of any professional misconduct of the kind your friend suffered.

CH did indeed have the racist insult to hand and chose to use it. This was damaging, utterly unacceptable and she is being investigated as a result. If there are any complaints against her on any grounds I am sure they will be scrutinised but particularly in relation to her treatment of black women.

At the moment there is no evidence that she practices in a racist manner or carries unprofessional, racist views into the workplace. However if evidence is found I would not imagine there will be any tolerance or sympathy for her position as a midwife going forward.

It’s is irrelevant whether your colleagues see you as having good character in this case.

Colleagues' perception and willingness to put their names to it in a setting like a tribunal is relevant. It all builds a contextual picture of the person for the panel. The fact that the picture is apparently contrary to what the allegations imply is the relevance.

I've had friends & colleagues up before the HCPC (the regulator for allied health professionals like physios, practitioner psychologists, radiographers, etc), one of whom was convicted of an actual crime (not a hate crime) and seeking restoration of their name to the register, and one of whom had been sacked for a misdemeanour at work. In all cases, colleagues' statements were crucial to the panel's decision. The colleague who was sacked was struck off in part due to testimony from colleagues about how dangerous their practice was. The one who had a criminal offence was restored to the register in part because of their colleagues' completely glowing testimonials (and proof of years-long work on their rehabilitation).

How? How would her behaviour be apparent and picked up on during all the hours where she was alone with her patients. Alone!

Everyonesinvited, you seem to see yourself as the voice of calm reason on this thread. Your tone is superior, dismissive and patronising and you are minimising the very legitimate and well-expressed issues raised by others. You use words like 'hysterical', 'catty', 'frothing at the mouth' and claim (in your oh-so-rational tone) that people are baying for blood, and 'not wanting CH to exist', with all that implies. It shows a curious and interesting disconnect (and, as an aside, reminds me of the tactics of an abusive ex.)

At the moment there is no evidence that she practices in a racist manner or carries unprofessional, racist views into the workplace.

The idea that someone with racist views leaves them at home when they go into work would be laughable if it wasn't so scarily daft.

Clemmie is not under investigation for her standard of clinical care. Misconduct also covers actions in a HCP’s private life that could affect public confidence in her, which is what is happening here.

www.nmc.org.uk/ftp-library/understanding-fitness-to-practise/how-we-determine-seriousness/serious-concerns-based-on-the-need-to-promote-public-confidence-in-nurses-and-midwives/

FWIW I’ve repeatedly said I don’t think she’ll be struck off; I don’t think a tribunal would judge she meets the highest level of seriousness as set out in the guidance.

It does mean that her public persona, including social media presence, is very relevant to proceedings, and I would imagine there have been quite a few discussions over the years about how appropriate quite a lot of her Instagram work was. She even said herself when posting on here years ago that she’d had to take some posts down after complaints.

As a midwife, she isn’t free to say whatever she wants. She HAS to bear in mind her professional standing, how what she says and writes could be interpreted, and any impact it might have on the public, and their confidence in midwives in general. Quite often she promoted things in clinical wear, for example, which is really skating on thin ice. Her book did shake me because in my opinion it was a really uneasy of midwife and influencer mum that wasn’t appropriate.

It’s why those of us who have pointed out that she has never really apologised publicly are saying that. Because the harm remains unaddressed. If the NMC agrees to her resuming social media activity then it’s something she will need to work hard to address. She can’t just go back to how things were, which is what her appearances on her husband’s account suggest she could do. Women in Wigan may not have heard of her (although I believe there is media there) but she won’t be treating them. More local to her though, news travels fast in patient communities as well as midwife ones. At the moment, there’s nothing to counterbalance the original story.

It’s not a case that there’s nothing she can do to turn this around. I hope there is, especially if she ends up back in public view. But she hasn’t done it yet outside her own private work community.