The government’s Nursing Regime, by its other name, the NMC, are a reflection of a dark past. During the English Civil War there were hundreds of witch trials by ordeal in England. Everyone knew witches float, so toss the accused witch into the lake, and if she floats then she is a witch. If she sinks, she is innocent, probably dead from drowning, but, oh well.

It is the same with nurses who are accused of violating the NMC’s  code of conduct. Those accused by their employers, who gather evidence from co-workers, which may include historical, petty misdemeanours, must be cleared by an NMC fitness to practice panel, but, if out of work, as many nurses accused by employers are, must also drown on Job Seeekers Allowance.

Let it be made clear, the NMC’s role in this is as a front of government control of the ‘medical professions‘. Anyone reading the Department of Health’s consulatation document (The Nursing and Midwifery Council: proposed changes to the governing legislation, 17/04/2014) will be fully assured that the NMC is open to  government review, and is little more than a quango, whose governing council is directly appointed by the Privy Council, and which is only ‘independent’ in name.

This is why a key principle of the NMC’s report-a-nurse protocol allows a potentially vindictive employer to readily make an accusation, whether due dilligence of the veracity of the claim as been done or not. I have a personal recollection of such an instance, when a very able nurse was accused of errors in drug administration by a matron whose best friend’s ex-husband was dating the accused nurse.

To be vindictive is human. In a recent High Court (Administrative Court) Decision, Suddock v The Nursing and Midwifery Council (2015] EWHC 3612 (Admin) (11 December 2015), Mrs. Justice Andrews, DBE, made, what I consider to be, ‘benchmark’ comments concerning the plausibility of witnesses giving evidence at NMC fitness to practice panels.

The following are general comments made by Mrs. Justice Andrews on some of the charges levelled against Ms Suddock:

136. ‘There was no weighing up of whose version of events was inherently more plausible, or more consistent either with earlier statements or with the contemporaneous documents‘.

141. ‘This is one of those rare situations in which, despite the advantages that the panel had of seeing and hearing the witnesses, I can safely conclude that it was both plainly wrong and unfair to find the charge proved against Ms Suddock … Whilst there is no duty on a panel to give anything more than adequate reasons for its decision, here there were no reasons given at all, and that is unfair. However this is not simply a case of inadequate reasoning; for all the reasons I have set out, the finding is not supported by the evidence. Not to put too fine a point on it, it is perverse’.

153. ‘What would the panel have done had it appreciated that the charge depended on the word of a witness who had made up a story about very serious wrongdoing, versus that of Ms Suddock, in respect of whom the panel had been given a good character direction?* … The panel had to be satisfied that it was more likely than not that these remarks were made by Ms Suddock as … alleged, not simply that they were remarks of a nature that she was likely to have made because, rightly or wrongly, she regarded herself as more knowledgeable than the HCAs’. *Good CQC inspection reports, etc.

154. ‘A further point is that the panel found Ms Suddock’s behaviour at the hearing to be “assertive and challenging” and treated this as negative. However, it may have looked at her behaviour in a very different light if it had appreciated that there was clear evidence that someone was trying to frame her, and that one of the witnesses against her was demonstrably untruthful, not just muddled. An innocent person facing that situation might well have presented as assertive and challenging, especially if she was trying to represent herself’.

160. ‘If one of the key witnesses of fact was lying, or at the very least was so confused that no weight could be placed on her evidence, and another was not available for cross-examination, but demonstrably contradicted herself in two statements taken two years apart, and embellished her evidence in the later statement by adding more serious allegations against Ms Suddock, the evidence of the other two and their motives for saying what they did might well come more closely under the microscope. I would expect a panel, in those circumstances, to have gone about its evaluation of their evidence somewhat differently‘.

167. ‘The panel failed to make it clear that it was not relying on that evidence as evidence of the truth of what the witnesses were told, but merely as evidence that staff at the Home had made similar or consistent allegations to their employer or to independent parties in the past’.

189. ‘However, and despite my extreme disquiet about some of the evidence that was relied on by the panel, plus its flawed approach to examination of the credibility of the witnesses, I cannot substitute my own decisions for the panel’s. I therefore have to decide whether to direct that some or all of these Charges be remitted. If the Charges are to be remitted, they would have to be heard by a different panel of the CCC. I cannot send them back for reconsideration by this panel because (a) however scrupulous its members might be about trying to put out of their minds the unfavourable impression they formed of Ms Suddock and the favourable impression they formed of the other witnesses it would be asking the impossible of them to do so, and (b) the reasonable observer would not believe that justice was being seen to be done unless the case against Ms Suddock was looked at through completely fresh eyes’.

193. ‘Ms Suddock has already been through the terrible experience of being falsely accused of serious wrongdoing in a number of respects, and threatened with losing her livelihood in consequence. The question is whether it would really be in the interests of justice and in the public interest to subject her to a second hearing of charges that she maintains are equally false. Ms Suddock submits that it would not. None of the specialist bodies charged with looking after the interests of vulnerable patients has seen fit to take any action against her; including the SHA following a Serious Case Report in the wake of Dr 10’s preliminary inquiries. That point is a powerful counterbalance to Ms Flack’s submission about the NMC’s statutory duties of public protection and upholding the public interest‘.

Thus, Mrs. Justice Andrews suggested that the NMC panel based its decision on a favourable impression they had formed of the witnesses against Ms Suddock, and a contrasting unfavourable impression they had formed about Ms Sudock, which was inconsistent with contemporaneous documents, and also relied on accusations that were the perceptions of witnesses of what the accused was likely to have done or said and not what she had actually done or said.

This is like saying this NMC’s (£310 a day) panel members acted like judges on a tv talent show.

Compare and contrast some of the points made by Mrs. Justice Andrews with suggestions made in the aforementioned ‘The Nursing and Midwifery Council: proposed changes to the governing legislation, 17/04/2014’:

17. ‘The system requires arrangements to be made for booking individual panellists from the pool to attend and although there is regular training and guidance provided, it can be difficult to achieve and demonstrate consistent, quality decision-making among a very large pool of panel members sitting in panels of at least three people’.

Comment: There is no consistent, quality decision-making. In fact, many decisions seem perverse.

26. Where a decision is made … which the NMC considers to be materially flawed, there is no power for this decision to be re-considered under the current legislation and action cannot be taken to address this without a successful judicial review by an affected third party, which is a lengthy and expensive process.

Comment: The NMC’s paymaster’s (the government) do not want individual nurses to seek redress in the courts. They would prefer to keep the process of appeal ‘in house’, rather like the approach supported by the NMC and the RCN on ‘whistleblowing’.

27. ‘This current approach prevents the NMC from acting efficiently or in the public interest in order to protect the public and restricts its ability as a regulator to fulfil its duty. This lack of a power to review IC decisions is inconsistent with the powers of the GMC and the General Dental Council’.

Comment: Mrs. Justice Andrews commented: ‘If the Charges are to be remitted, they would have to be heard by a different panel of the CCC. I cannot send them back for reconsideration by this panel because (a) however scrupulous its members might be about trying to put out of their minds the unfavourable impression they formed of Ms Suddock and the favourable impression they formed of the other witnesses it would be asking the impossible of them to do so, and (b) the reasonable observer would not believe that justice was being seen to be done unless the case against Ms Suddock was looked at through completely fresh eyes’. To extend the logic of this precept, would it not be fair to ask if justice can not be seen to be done unless the case against any nurse is looked at by other than the NMC?

28. ‘Proposal: It is proposed that where Case Examiners or a panel … have determined that there is no case for a nurse or midwife to answer following allegations that their Fitness-to-Practise is impaired:
• The NMC will be given the power to review such decisions.
• The NMC would have the ability to make Rules for carrying out such reviews’.

Comment: This refers to the initial ‘case-no-case’ to answer stage of accusation. The great danger here is in the likelihood (I suggest) of the principle of retrospective action being applied to decisions of  fitness to practice panels. The principle of retrospective review is like ‘letting a Geni out of the bag’.

29. ‘This amendment is necessary because it will allow the NMC to properly fulfil its duty as a regulator by ensuring it can give further consideration, and where necessary, take direct action to re-visit closed cases in specified circumstances. (Please refer to the NMC consultation on changes to the Fitness-to-Practise Rules and to the Registration Rules). This is important because it improves public protection and would bring the NMC’s powers into line with the GMC and GDC and will ensure the public have equal confidence in the NMC as an effective regulator and public confidence in the nursing and midwifery professions to be maintained’.

Comment: The government will eventually allow (1) the NMC to investigate unsafe decisions made by its fitness to practice panels, as in the judgement against Ms Suddock, (2) decisions of its panels that found the nurse not guilty of charges, (3) ‘accusers’ (organisations) to present new evidence of ‘guilt’ concerning nurses at all stages of the  fitness to practice process.

Thus, a double-edged sword will be offered; one edge of it giving a nurse recourse to an ‘in-house’ appeal; the sharper edge being dangled as the Sword of Damocles over the heads of those who believed they have been cleared of charges. A charter for vindictive employers to try and try again.

Yes, not all nurses are good, and if new and genuine evidence is found against them it should be considered, but, under the doctrine that I propose will be adopted, a large number of good nurses would be open to continuous dredging up of  new, false accusations.

Will it be made compulsory for all nurses to have to exhaust the ‘in-house’ appeals procedure before being allowed to seek redress in the courts? Whose nerves could survive this mental obstacle course? The NMC will review your case because our panel members may have got it wrong, but we are open to receive further evidence against you!

To want to chain nurses to the same dictates as operated by the GMC is not about improving ‘public protection’, it is about extending the control of the State.

Nurses should pay a monthly fee into a fund set up by solicitors, to defend themselves against false accusation, instead of paying RCN subscription fees, which cover the cost of more than just defending nurses.

Before any NMC hearing, solicitors should write to the NMC stating that their client’s defense will be one of ‘false accusation’, and ask if any organisation bringing charges have done ‘due dilligence’ as to the veracity of witness statements, and are not a party to defamation by neglect of proper investigation (due dilligence).

Solicitors should use the judgements made in ‘Suddock v The Nursing and Midwifery Council’ to ask if a panel has based its decisions on perceptions of the plausibility of witnesses against that of the accused, and are these perceptions ‘consistent with the documents and the uncontroversial facts’, and, if not, are they not a party to defamation by neglect of proper investigation? (due dilligence).

Do not just simply lay down and take it, unless you are one of the untold thousands who chose to leave nursing because there are far more safer ways of earning a crust, and leave the way open for Nursings’ great conveyor belt of new cannon fodder to relace you.

You should not be blamed for doing this.

Who would want to go through the ordeal of a modern day witch trial?

lenin nightingale 2016



48 thoughts on “NMC (IN HOUSE) APPEAL PLANS

  1. So so true The NMC is a ruthless set of individuals who have little time for truth, honesty and integrity.
    They willingly accept the word of vindictive employers AND gossiping HCA eager to be the mouthpiece of the employer. Based on what the Care assistants say the NMC are happy to make a full case out of it and sanction the nurse
    Employers consider it JOB DONE
    The NMC is an evil organisation

  2. The other problem is that the NMC are only assessed by the PSA for being too lenient but no one assesses the NMC for being wrong, unfair, harsh, disproportionate or even simply punishing nurses that whistleblow. They like to believe employers that are the real perpetrators.

    Laws need to be reviewed by the Department of Health and the Law Commission to ensure that the NMC are fully assessed and not just assessed for being too lenient.

    This is like having a fork but without the knife.

    • Might also be a good idea to review whether the NMC are fit for purpose too. They are racist and discriminate against the weak and the helpless, being bullies. They seem to function on a quota system and the more nurses they terminally disable from working again the more pleasure they get from it. The NMC then take pleasure in reviewing their acts of injustice at frequent intervals wasting public money. This can’t be right,. and it surely isn’t the reason we have a regulator.

  3. In some cases, the witnesses lie. If the nurse fails to attend, she cannot question it so is most likley removed. Cases may rely on hearsay- I saw her do this, I witnessed it. Witness may claim to have seen or heard something, but not actually been at work that day.
    I heard of a case thrown out before it started, as the witness wrote a letter admitting her employer ordered her to lie.A nurse advised her to do this when she approached him for advice.
    Hence the landmark case of Vasanta. Yet Vasanta battles on alone – on behalf of nurses who refuse to support her. I am disgusted too with many other campaigners, groups. whistleblowers. Words fail me. See the underlying issue , not your own one case- some of you are as bad as they who you complain about. I do not know if my twitter/facebook are restricted, but it is not worth bothering anymore.
    Vasanta is very strong and determined- more so even than myself.

  4. My case is with the High court at the moment. I informed the NMC my Mother in law had died 3 days before the hearing. I informed them within 2 HOURs of her death and the next day. They ignored this and went ahead with the case saying I had voluntarily absented myself
    I was able to get the corrupt witness statements and all but 1 of the false allegations made against me thrown out. The remaining one comes down to WHO OPENED THE DOOR? A resident was able to get hold of some medication. 2 people had keys to the treatment room – ME (an RGN) and a HCA (Care Home NVQ with Boots training book) from another unit. Both of us HAD to use the room ( more a cupboard) so the question is;
    The NMC cant touch a HCA therefore it was me. The HCA was used by the company to falsify medicines audits and pull the wool over CQC inspectors eyes. She enjoyed this notoriety
    For my part It had never happened in my 50 years of nursing but the HCA with 1 year and an NVQ & Boots training isn’t even mentioned.
    Even the NMC witness was from a home 30 miles away & was an NVQ manager, didnt know me & didn’t know the home. She did admit I had raised grievances relating to the unsafe working environment concerning the drug cupboard and “dangerous staffing levels but I didn’t have insight. NMC have never met me but decoded I didn’t show remorse. LIKE HELL!
    The Court case is £7000 which is why nurses don’t go down that rout for JUSTICE. Vasanta is strong, being able to take on the NMC herself, and I admire her for that. Most of us, after months even years of psychological Coercive Control are not in any fit state, some suicidal, to fight for HONESTY, INTEGRITY and JUSTICE

    • Every nurse that is innocent MUST FIGHT even if alone… this is how we learn and protect future nurses being subjected to unfair harm… so genuine nurses can continue to raise concerns without fear of reprisals … it is far cheaper defending yourself than hiring a lawyer/ barrister at hundreds of pounds an hour … If it costs 7, 000 to go to High Court… this is far cheaper than spending out for legal fees and if you win at High Court, you will get the money back…. NO lawyer or barrister can defend a case the way the nurse can as the nurse should know her case inside out …. Fear is the biggest barrier … break the barrier and take the step…. Why is no one doing this? … forget lawyers / barristers as they cannot put the time required in to a case…. Everyone is too scared and allows the system to win… BUT … this is why so many nurses are impaired, sanctioned or struck off … there has only been a few at high court that has won with legal rep…. ? 7 in 5 years, I think…. why isn’t anyone fighting to have NMC Rules Order 2001, 2004 to be reviewed, why isn’t anyone complaining about how PSA only investigate cases that conclude as too lenient… who investigates the NMC when too perverse or unfair, or wrong? NO ONE….. The problem is that nurses never stick together and fight for each other NOR help each other… I am fighting to achieve the bigger picture to protect future WB nurses and do not want to go on about me, myself & I …. I want justice for all innocent nurses …Has any nurse looked at the Law commission Bill and their proposals in April 2014? Has anyone looked at the DoH response to the Law Commission Bill? …. I would like to know how many nurses have complained and to what level? As there is no one to complain to if the nurse is being treated unfairly by the regulator… I have also had a horrendous journey in the last 5 years …BUT…. this cannot be just about me…. I have fantastic support from many friends and family including Carol Dimon and Jenny Moore (YVM)… BUT… NOT one person on twitter (apart from Jenny & Carol & Mark Jones) has had the decency to ask how my case is going, even the many I have helped with their cases….. THIS IS MY POINT…. no one is interested in each other but use twitter / FB to air their grievances … BUT… nothing changes… Fight for each other, fight for laws to be reviewed, fight for a fair system… do not fight just for yourself as this is the initial trigger, but it then leads in to wanting to fight for others and use your experiences to help others … ANYONE??????

      • I have kept abreast of your case Vasanta. A group of NMC rejects, innocent victims of NMC, either going through the psychological abuse or branded as ‘DANGEROUS’ have noted that the NMC are still hounding you. Some of us are in the position of having to kowtow to NMC with stupid reflective pieces and dont want to compromise their position with the NMC. As you know the legal dept and Fitness to Practice depts of the NMC are very vindictive, hence they will not leave your case alone.
        I am using a legal team as I am so angry I would end up telling them just what i think of them, which wouldnt come across too well.
        My case is in Leeds on 1st June but aparently I may not be allowed to speak, they go over the case notes but the 2nd person with keys isnt even mentioned. Some of your case is being used in evidence so I thank you for that

    • Why don’t nurses fight alone as hiring a barrister costs more than high court. It’s about time innocent WB nurses stop lining the pockets of the legal domain…. Nurses must fight to protect each other as not many nurses want to have laws reviewed…. Look at the Law Commission Bill and their recommendations in 2014 & then look at the DoH response…….. NMC rules order 2001 & 2004 needs reviewing and section 60 / Health Act ….. The PSA needs to investigate regulators when they are perverse and not just too lenient ….. Is any or many going to challenge current legislation or just clear your own name?


      • Vasanta, my guess is we are worn out by the time we get to hearing – I was .It took me 3 years to get my case heard by the NMC – going from the interim hearing of been called “Safe and competent” – to the pronouncement at hearing that I was a danger to the public.(Quite funny really, I hadn’t nursed during that time, I just couldn’t – so how I had got dangerous, I don’t know. But since then, they have ramped up my danger status to ” a danger to the Public, a danger to the Profession and a danger to the NMC” Brilliant to have so much power, I just don’t know how to use it.)

        I think there are several elements to taking on the NMC, you have to have some support from somewhere – both financial and emotional, and I had none( my nursing friends vanished like early morning mist), and no family or partner to come with me on this journey, until I joined the Victims group and then another on Facebook – at the same time as my case came to hearing. By then I had run out of anger. Yes, the case that NHSD laid against me was a pack of lies and verifiable rubbish,( documentary proof to support my claims). Yes, they had done their best not to provide the NMC with any of the incriminating evidence against themselves. Not that the NMC have the wits to recognize this fact, that the data disproves the allegations, anyway. I kept telling the NMC , this but they took no notice.

        Then the hearing spanned 6 months and what sanity I had regained in the intervening 3 years, I would have lost again. Going through all the rubbish that the NHSD had dished up – and I think they used the logic that the more “evidence they claim, the more confused the NMC will be and so just go the way of least resistance – if Management say this then it must be true. All this, with a gormless NMC panel, who are not nurses in the main; being belittled for every good and sensible action I had taken – (which is what the NHSD took delight in doing to me before I resigned.) I had made good sensible decisions for 8 years, for the good of these patients, in the framework of the very perverse organization I had been working for. My clinical knowledge was vast, in my own particular fields of expertise and general in the other fields, I had 35 years of clinical experience, 2 degrees etc – I was no fool except that I ever went to work for NHSD in the first place,

        I am with you on this, that the spot light needs to be shone into the dark corners of the NMC. Their practices, need to be exposed for what they are – ritualized flogging of innocent nurses – (More nurses are innocent, than the guilty ones) and any fool could see this from the Hearing allegations. The way they use the law to support their wicked practices, and whether these laws are appropriate for the way they are being used by the NMC.

        It’s a sick registration body who takes delight in disabling perfectly good nurses, and preventing bread winners from earning an income – putting their lives and their families lives at risk. Just to satisfy either a quota mentality or a bunch of Legal twits perverted sense of what is right or wrong in Nursing. What do they know any of them, have they ever had to be endlessly patient with people ( and their families too) who are so tiresome it would test a saint? I doubt , or worked shifts which flick back and forwards from days to nights with out even a full days break between then?I doubt it.

        But how one drums up disengaged Nurses to deal with the Abuses of the NMC, I don’t know. I suspect that the methods of the NMC are designed to deter Nurses from complaining about their abuse at the hands of the NMC, Bullies making it too painful to nurses , to have anything to do with an organization which has already inflicted so much pain already – kind of Pavlovian.

      • I understand as been through similar for the last 4 & 1/2 years and I feel every innocent nurse who has been the subject of FtP , must cross examine witnesses that have lied for their own agenda that suits the employer’s agenda.

        The NMC fail to acknowledge this but the transcripts prove your innocence along with evidence. The panel cannot rely on demeanour without referring to contemporaneous documents.

        I hope we can all make a difference to stop vexatious referrals and stop the NMC accepting changing statements as their facts…

  5. It says PSA are placed by DoH and NMC are placed by Privy Council as look under NMC Rules Order 2001 paragraph 53 ….something has to change. I would like the names of every nurse / midwife that has suffered at the behest of NMC FtP and CCC conclusion – I want to go higher as this cannot continue against innocent registrants

  6. Words of Lenin “Vasanta set a precedent, but the price is that the NMC will close the loophole for everyone else, bias will be checked for before any hearing”

    • NMC cannot close loopholes especially if the nurse produces contemporaneous documents – but they ignored it at the 1st hearing in 2015…..but this is why I won the high court as no loophole will beat contemporaneous documents & thorough cross examination of the witnesses. The panel this year 2016 were fair & thorough, they also confirmed how witnesses lied….. I want to ensure legislation is reviewed but not one nurse will even try to put a report into the relevant departments and I even had PSA write to me yesterday to confirm I’m the only nurse who has complained….. Even though they can’t help innocent nurses and only get involved if NMC are too lenient.. …. Fed up of everyone moaning but no one is trying to change laws…. Doctors stick together, but when do nurses stand by each other unless they moan on social media. …. Wasted energy, and far more productive if we all got together and pushed for laws to be changed ……….Anyone? ……………….. Thought not

  7. We hope you are correct. Any law can be re- written. All loopholes can be closed. They will ban the production of documents. They in power- rule.

  8. I am fighting. Three years after career crushing practice conditions were applied for a confidentiality breach that wasn’t and that was additionaly vindicated by the cqc who rang to thank me the only short term jobs I could get in 2015 were both abusing patients which I formally complained to the servicrs about. Both created malicious absurd counter allegations offered by willing care staff who had perpetrated the very abuses complained about. One alleged me as saying in respect of a pop video..”cor..look at the tits on that..what could you do with them eh?” The nmc will prosecute anything. The yardstick is whether it is “winnable” and in the best US legal tradition everything is fair game.

  9. Another appeal case won- Fuzzy Duck twitter- .This time with the help of a solicitor who wrote a cast iron submission, and rightly so. 2016

    • Can you let me know what nurse has won at High Court, the Judge and the Barrister representing her in May/ June 2016 ???? As I am doing a report for the NMC Consultation that has to be submitted by 17/6/16 as this is allegedly supposed to review current NMC Rules 2001 & 2004 and section 60 of the Health Act. I am trying to compile a document on how many nurses have won at High Court with a Barrister (I have found 7 so far in 6 years) … I do not know if anyone else is going to do this but it would be good if Nurses & Midwives could try and answer this legal NMC Consultation document that has to be submitted by 17/6/16 and there is another document that all nurses and midwives can help change laws called ‘RETHINKING REGULATION” …. The more support we give each other, the more changes we can make to protect the future NMC registrants

  10. Vasanta I contacted you some time ago re my case on June 1st in Leeds Crown Court. won the appeal outright with costs Please message me. There was criticism of NMC and Care UK The case isnt online yet it is Hindmarch V NMC 2016. The NMC have removed my name from their public sites however it is still on Google search

    • Yes I have your skeleton argument but it says about NMC putting a suspension order on you in October 2015 and for review June 2016 before October 2016.

      So I am lost what is happening and the NMC has to put your name back on their register like they did with me.

      So has the NMC removed your suspension & interim suspension order without you having a hearing?

  11. Report needs doing Vasanta. As all know, our aim is always to link people up and offer information and support for free. You have my email address.

    • I’ll email 2 links I am doing and see if any other nurse wants to submit their ideas directly to DoH. It’s long and very intense , so nurses need to learn all laws relevant to these documents….. It’s hard going but might be worth it

    • Can’t find your case anywhere online. Can you post a link on here so I can also use your case with a report I’m doing. I cannot find many successful cases. Please copy link of your case success on here

    • Can you email me link of your case and why hasn’t NMC put your name back on register? I cannot find any evidence of your case??? No link and no proof you’ve won?
      Congratulations if you’ve won but send me link so I can use it for other nurses / midwives

  12. I won the appeal and the NMC decision was quashed. The NMC can not take any further action against me. Both NMC and Care UK were criticised during the case.
    It is amazing that approx 4000 nurses are referred each year and half have no case to answer. So in 6 years that is 12,000 nurses cases were found proved by NMC. Of these only 7 have gone to appeal. This could be due to cost or due to the RN being so mentally ill or so beaten down after years of psychological abuse by NMC, they just want out to move into a career where the regulators have some compassion and recognise that they have a duty of care for their registrants.
    The only way RNs will get justice is for cases to be removed from the claws of the NMC and the accompanying commercial.financial interests , into the hands of the judicery who are independent and the LAW reigns supreme.

    • WELL DONE – AT LAST…. yes I think out of 4,500 referrals every year, 1,400 are impaired, sanctioned or struck off …. which are mostly the ones that go to CCCSH….. and out of that only 7 or 7 cases have won at high court with a Barrister…. BUT… out of the 7 that won, they were remitted back to CCCSH and only 4 won…. CAN YOU TELL ME WHEN DID YOU GET COPIES OF THE TRANSCRIPTS FROM NMC AFTER YOUR HEARING (I know did not attend due to bereavement) BUT NEED TO KNOW WHEN TRANSCRIPTS WERE SENT TO YOU OR YOUR LAWYER…. WAS IT JUST BEFORE HIGH COURT APPEAL WAS MADE OR WAS IT SOON AFTER YOUR CCC HEARING? …………. I HAVE A THEORY WHY EVERY NURSE IS LOSING……….. BUT DID YOU KNOW THAT 10,000 DOCTORS ARE REFERRED TO GMC ANNUALLY AND ONLY 200 (TWO HUNDRED) ARE SANCTIONED, IMPAIRED OR STRUCK OFF? ………… SOMETHING IS NOT RIGHT AND I NEED TO KNOW ABOUT TRANSCRIPTS

  13. My solicitor got all the papers from the NMC, surely under FoI Act & Personal Disclosure you are entitled to all of this information. Try contacting the Information Commissioner’s Office for clarification on this.

    • Thanks but I have contacted FOI who have ignored me many times, BUT I have done something else ….. BUT you have given me another idea, cannot write it online, as you do know we will be watched …. As Carol/ Lenin said, the NMC will try and block all loopholes to prevent a self-litigant winning again… I did not agree at the time BUT I wonder now as both you and me have proved how they have brought their own reputation into disrepute ….. BUT they will never advertise/ publish our outcomes ….. THIS IS THE POWER THEY HAVE ….

      • have you phoned the FoI office direct. The NMC cant touch me as I dont have a PIN to protect now ive retired. This is the hold the NMC have over nurses Its a form of emotional blackmail the NMC are using.
        You obey the NMC or we will through everything at you. We will discredit you! We will find that your attitude shows you have no insight! Your attitude shows you have no remorse! The NMC will decide that you have brought nursing into disrepute! We will decide you are a danger to the public! We will decide that you are undermining the public confidence in the NMC! We will decide you are a danger to your colleagues. Any other crap they can think up they will use
        That is why nurses are waiting 6/7 or even more years for completion. A murderer can be taken to the Magistrates court, transferred to the Crown Court, go through the Court process,be imprisoned, serve time and be released in that time!
        Each hearing is made up of legal ‘experts’ there is only 1 ‘expert’ and that is the single registrant.
        As for the registrant in my case she had no idea about the classification and storage of Lorazepam. As she is a manager of an ITU and Deputy Director of Nursing for Cambridge not only has SHE has brought nursing into disrepute SHE has undermined the confidence of the public.
        The only way nurses can get justice is for all cases to be taken out of their hands and proper investigations must be made in stead of the NMC using hearsay. The judiciary may be more expensive but the decision would be fair and independent, based on actual facts and not fictitious statements made up by willing care assistants happy to be the mouthpieces of their employer.
        The NMC must change



      • I reckon they should publish an apology too! They have slandered you( and the rest of us too) roundly, with the stuff they have put in the public domain. But since you and Anno have won, you should get some recompense for the pain you have endured!

      • Yes all nurses/ midwives that are falsely accused should be financially remedied. But the high court sees a remedy as clearance.

        But being cleared isn’t a remedy as we should have. never been subjected to this in the beginning.

  14. The solicitor got the transcript from NMC. He needed it to make my case. He was brilliant and I was kept informed at every stage.
    The NMC were offered a chance to backdown last November which they refused. Therefore the costs were higher.
    Damn I didnt charge for the hotel & petrol Doh


  15. My appeal case has cost Nurses £11,052 Yes nurses paying £120 a years to a dictatorial organisation that puts stakeholders before innocent nurses or the public.
    I could not /did not get justice in an NMC hearing but I did get it from the High Court

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s