Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Helen Webberley

978 replies

Signalbox · 05/07/2021 11:59

Looks like Helem Webberley's substantive case has finally been listed for 26th July 2021

www.mpts-uk.org/hearings-and-decisions/medical-practitioners-tribunals/dr-helen-webberley-jul-21

OP posts:
Thread gallery
43
DisgustedofManchester · 05/08/2021 12:22

I've been following the tweet thread provided and Helen W may still lose on a technicality but what is the most obvious outcome is the incompetence and obfuscation of the GMC and NHS services bringing this case. How many times will their witnesses have specific perfect recall and then suddenly say "I don't remember" about the same event?

Tibtom · 05/08/2021 13:26

Those tricky technicalities that result in you getting a criminal conviction...

Original poster
Signalbox · 05/08/2021 17:22

@DisgustedofManchester

I've been following the tweet thread provided and Helen W may still lose on a technicality but what is the most obvious outcome is the incompetence and obfuscation of the GMC and NHS services bringing this case. How many times will their witnesses have specific perfect recall and then suddenly say "I don't remember" about the same event?
It's not unusual for witnesses to not have 100% recall of events 4 years later. Some things stick in your mind and others not so much. So long as witnesses are clear about what they can remember and what they can't. Often professionals (such as GPs and those who work for the CQC or HIW) may rely on their contemporaneous notes rather than their direct memory. Often registrants will say it was my usual practice to do X so I would definitely have done it on that occasion but with no direct memory of what happened on a particular occasion.

Also HW can't "lose on a technicality" because the GDC have to prove (with evidence) each head of charge on the balance of probabilities. You can't prove something on a technicality.

OP posts:
Lordamighty · 05/08/2021 18:06

@DisgustedofManchester

I've been following the tweet thread provided and Helen W may still lose on a technicality but what is the most obvious outcome is the incompetence and obfuscation of the GMC and NHS services bringing this case. How many times will their witnesses have specific perfect recall and then suddenly say "I don't remember" about the same event?
The GMC are the ones bringing the case against Webberley & the NHS are not on trial here. Nice try though.
ArabellaScott · 05/08/2021 19:05

Does 'lose on a technicality' mean the same as 'be convicted'?

Chickenyhead · 05/08/2021 21:10

I have appeared in court as a witness due to my civil service role. All professional bodies have guidelines which apply to their work.

Those guidelines are to be followed in all cases, where this is not possible, it is necessary to record the reasons why. Records should be maintained.

Therefore, when appearing in court, I was able to swear, without doubt, as to what I did and didn't do, as a matter of course, in my role.

It is called due diligence. It isn't new. Look it up.

Technicality my arse.

Original poster
Signalbox · 06/08/2021 10:13

Day 10 tweets (@tribunaltweets, @robjessel) start here…

mobile.twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1423565754767716353

OP posts:
Original poster
Signalbox · 06/08/2021 10:23

And for completeness, @mpts_hearing tweets start here...

twitter.com/MPTS_Hearing/status/1423561453693456384

OP posts:
Jorrris · 06/08/2021 11:41

@ArabellaScott

Does 'lose on a technicality' mean the same as 'be convicted'?
Yes, I believe it means exactly that.
Lettera · 06/08/2021 15:42

It's incorrect to talk of 'winning' or 'losing' in this context.

This isn't a civil case, nor is the GMC prosecuting Webberley. The purpose of the hearing is to establish whether she is currently fit to practise as a doctor and, if not, whether a sanction should be imposed. Sanctions are not punishments but are designed to protect the public.

DisgustedofManchester · 08/08/2021 15:20

I think you will find it was someone in the NHS, in GIDS to be precise, that made the complaint, nice try.

The issue with memory loss here is that its very selective. They remember only the part that supports the GMC, forget the part which shows up their incompetence or lack of sense at which point the legal rep for the GMC requests a break suddenly so they can have a chat with the witness.

The GMC legal rep has been quite pragmatic to be fair which is good because the chair is losing patience with the GMC's case

DisgustedofManchester · 08/08/2021 15:22

@Lettera

It's incorrect to talk of 'winning' or 'losing' in this context.

This isn't a civil case, nor is the GMC prosecuting Webberley. The purpose of the hearing is to establish whether she is currently fit to practise as a doctor and, if not, whether a sanction should be imposed. Sanctions are not punishments but are designed to protect the public.

That's like saying we send people to jail to protect the public not as a punishment. She loses her license to practice. Its taken four years to get to this point and the GMC is a farce. They still haven't provided all the evidence for scrutiny to the defence team.
Jorrris · 08/08/2021 15:22

I'm sure they'll get there. Looking forward to the outcome of this ☺️

Original poster
Signalbox · 08/08/2021 17:58

They remember only the part that supports the GMC, forget the part which shows up their incompetence or lack of sense at which point the legal rep for the GMC requests a break suddenly so they can have a chat with the witness

You honestly haven't got a clue what you are talking about. The witnesses aren't allowed to talk to anyone about their evidence whilst they are sworn in and giving evidence. Breaks may be requested when witnesses have been giving evidence for more than an hour or if they are upset because it's very tiring and stressful and they tend to give their best evidence if they are well rested.

That's like saying we send people to jail to protect the public not as a punishment. She loses her license to practice.

People are sent to jail to protect the public AND also as a punishment.

With fitness to practice the the primary objective is to protect the public and the reputation of the profession. Sanctions are not intended to be punitive but obviously it may feel like a punishment to the registrant. HW may not lose her license if her failures are considered to be remediable. Her issue will be that she has no insight into her failures and this never makes for a good doctor.

OP posts:
Original poster
Signalbox · 09/08/2021 11:32

Tweets for 9th August (day 11) start here...

twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1424657874312105986

And here...

twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1424673396617515010

Representing Helen Webberley: Mr Ian Stern, QC (IS).
GMC representative: Mr Simon Jackson, QC (SJ).

OP posts:
Original poster
Signalbox · 09/08/2021 11:34

And here...

twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1424678948387135488

OP posts:
DisgustedofManchester · 14/08/2021 23:11

@Signalbox

They remember only the part that supports the GMC, forget the part which shows up their incompetence or lack of sense at which point the legal rep for the GMC requests a break suddenly so they can have a chat with the witness

You honestly haven't got a clue what you are talking about. The witnesses aren't allowed to talk to anyone about their evidence whilst they are sworn in and giving evidence. Breaks may be requested when witnesses have been giving evidence for more than an hour or if they are upset because it's very tiring and stressful and they tend to give their best evidence if they are well rested.

That's like saying we send people to jail to protect the public not as a punishment. She loses her license to practice.

People are sent to jail to protect the public AND also as a punishment.

With fitness to practice the the primary objective is to protect the public and the reputation of the profession. Sanctions are not intended to be punitive but obviously it may feel like a punishment to the registrant. HW may not lose her license if her failures are considered to be remediable. Her issue will be that she has no insight into her failures and this never makes for a good doctor.

Read tyour own links, they are asking for breaks when their case starts becoming a farce. During the break they can discuss things with the legal team. They even are showing the witnesses new information during the evidence breaks. Its there in the tweet report.

As for your final comment, the case seems to hinge on HW who continued treatment ( not started new treatments ) or the complaint which was ignoring the whole 'do no harm ' principle of medicine and wanted ongoing treatment to stop without any other care being made available. If she loses it will be on a technicality but only she seemed to actually have the patient's needs as a priority.

It shines a strong light on those that would prefer young people not receive the help they need for ideological reasons because outside of giving them affirmative care, there is no other vcare on the table apart from conversion therapy.

OldCrone · 14/08/2021 23:41

outside of giving them affirmative care, there is no other vcare on the table apart from conversion therapy.

What do you mean by conversion therapy in this context?

Lettera · 14/08/2021 23:55

You're still going on about Webberley losing 'on a technicality'. You really don't understand the process, do you?

Tisha0 · 15/08/2021 08:52

When is the judgement due?

MonsignorMirth · 15/08/2021 13:58

It shines a strong light on those that would prefer young people not receive the help they need for ideological reasons

Just to be clear - you think the GC position is that HW's treatment does "help", ie that it provides the most benefit for the least harm over whole life, but that we don't want children to have this benefit because of ideological reasons ?
Is that what you think?

MonsignorMirth · 15/08/2021 14:02

Actually I'd be surprised if any of our visitors here to argue can actually state the GC position accurately, in such a way that most proponents would agree represents their views.

That's why the internet is full of people arguing in circles. No desire to actually debate the points being argued.

shesellsseacats · 15/08/2021 15:20

@MonsignorMirth

Actually I'd be surprised if any of our visitors here to argue can actually state the GC position accurately, in such a way that most proponents would agree represents their views.

That's why the internet is full of people arguing in circles. No desire to actually debate the points being argued.

Couldn't agree more.
Leafstamp · 15/08/2021 19:19

@Tisha0

When is the judgement due?
I presume a decision will be made at the end of the hearing? Which is mid October:

www.mpts-uk.org/hearings-and-decisions/medical-practitioners-tribunals/dr-helen-webberley-jul-21

Tisha0 · 16/08/2021 00:22

@Leafstamp - thank you.