Dear General Medical Council,

I understand from GMC prosecution submissions, that a Fitness to Practice Investigation starts from the moment an investigation case is opened on Siebal. It does not finish until the end of any final sanction, determination or full closure of a case. That is regardless of if it is known to a doctor. It was my previous belief an investigation closed when it is declared and case is closed or goes to a hearing, I accept I am wrong. However with this new GMC case length definition, the number of cases the GMC reports of doctors being investigated for more than 2 years are clearly wrong. Further given the GMC bad practice of splitting cases to arbitrarily shorten apparent case length (similar to NHS managers manipulating figures) despite it essentially being a continuous non-stop investigation/case also clouds manipulated figures presented by the GMC.

Please can you report the number of doctors that have been investigated more than 2 years in 2020, 2021 and 2022.

I would clarify that it is the number of doctors and not the number of cases. If needed, please use simple arithmetic of addition for when there are multiple cases with the same doctor. I am aware of the high chance of refusal of this request but unsure how you will refuse. If you do this on cost, then you should as a supposed medical body use the average wage of a junior doctor. You cannot misuse Section 14 as it is clearly vexatious actions to prevent a defence and is against the individual making a request which is against the law. I would like the information electronically ideally as an office document or pdf within 20 working days despite past practices.

I will repeat the request: Please can you report the number of doctors that have been investigated more than 2 years in 2020, 2021 and 2022.

Kind Regards,

Dr S. Ali

Dear General Medical Council,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews. I am writing to request an internal review of General Medical Council's handling of my FOI request 'GMC FTP cases over 2 years'.

I am disappointed it is obvious you have waited until Day 20 to reply with a rejection and my original request in anticipation of a vexatious refusal by the GMC was written to address this, given history and the need for the information which is as a result of burdens the GMC places upon me. This is further inappropriate as although you could have responded earlier but I understand not only did you wait until 20 working days but, that you also wanted to avoid extra-naming you specific case management directions although given your internal politics you may have ignored that anyway.

It appears you either know the law and act maliciously or you do not know the DPA law and need re-training. Either way it is clear your department continue to willfully act obstructively as evidenced in prior High Court submissions. I am aware your colleagues are not happy about the use of the whatdotheyknow platform as it encompasses principles of candour and transparency. Regardless of GMC principles, this is not an acceptable reason to reject a request.

I request an internal review bearing in mind the GMC actively have misused Section 14(1) which is with other existing ICO complaints of the GMC. May I remind you that the FOI Act requires an 'applicant blind' approach, which is to say that it embodies the principle that information is available to anyone and requests must be assessed without consideration of who made them. Contrary to the ICO's guidance (see https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...), your decision has been influenced by your knowledge or view of me as the requester, rather than an assessment of the request in isolation. For that reason I am asking your manager to review your response and, if the exemption is upheld, to provide an assessment which does not take your knowledge of the requester into consideration.

If you have already planned to reject the internal review out of hand (anticipated given history of bad practice and getting to your your department and workings), waiting 20 working days or longer, will only evidence further bad GMC practice. I would remind you of existing case management directions to provide any relevant documents and as you know my request is on the back of active bad practice by your other departments which the GMC in every annual report mischievously show a lack of probity with tailoring statistics. On this basis, the request is clearly in the public interest and the outcome would correct false data published by the GMC, but I would agree with your department assessment it would cause irritation and embarrassment but given the seriousness of information it is clearly not trivial especially given GMC guidance on behaviour and Good Medical Practice. ICO guidance states that Section 14(1) is to be applied because of the nature of the request rather than the consequences of releasing the requested information (see https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...).

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/g...

Yours sincerely,

Dr Ali

Dear FOI,

Given prior public submission to the high court of serial incompetence in several cases from several requesters (already or previously at the high court, not just me) by Julian Graves, I am not sure that is sensible, moreso as his response to any internal appeal is predictable and will be yet again highlighted to your seniors further urging disciplinary action or dismissal needs to occur.

On this transparent basis and that there is an ongoing vexatious response against me as a requestor rather than the requests, where the information is needed for processes initiated by your colleagues, not just the investigator but the original MPTS and GMC complainant, as you are considering your own complaints. It would be more sensible for escalation to a senior manager or director to respond.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Ali

Dear Julian Graves,

Thank you for your email. My language is open and honest as expected of a good doctor but this does undermine the GMC given persistent dishonest-GMC language and abusive practices that undermine the public Interest and any confidence of doctors in the GMC. As an elected official, I am in the correct position to comment on this, whilst it is not your job to act outside the scope of your employment.

As you are aware in anticipation of predictable bad practice I had written "If you have already planned to reject the internal review out of hand (anticipated given history of bad practice and getting to your your department and workings), waiting 20 working days or longer, will only evidence further bad GMC practice." That is exactly what you have done and an additional complaint in respect of habitual bad time-keeping will be made. However the Internal Review is supposed to be about the contents and refusal to read the request with a pre-occupation on refusing; rather than your individual habitual bad behavior, false perception of platform and GMC-hypocrisy of candor.

The request is about having the correct information for an active GMC FTP entrapment case that is being abused in-house for: at the GMC (Chair's) request, candidly enquiring about voluntary work at a call center (none-doctor post), but then your MPTS colleague complained as a third parties but due to multiple Police investigations is now saying she is not the complainant - but the GMC proceeded misusing time and lack of complaint. The lack of complaint is an issue but here the FOIA request is exploring the way time is misused in FTP processes against the way it is dishonestly presented. There is no question about GMC-dishonesty. Given further abusive practice by the GMC, which clearly is escalating, I still require the 'time -FTP cases over 2years' information as it will again be going to the Courts as there is no legal basis, only punitive abuse. You proceed similarly in support, despite bad practice being identified with a refusal to correct your own bad practices, which will be complained to the Professional Standards Authority to highlight to other regulators inappropriate behaviour and use for the Regulatory Act and revision of the Medical Act 1983 (as amended). Obviously I now also to the Information Commissioners Office as the information is still actively needed, for a specific purpose. I have to openly and transparently act, which I have done honestly.

As the GMC have used new definitions for several years supposedly according to your colleagues including legal Barrister, then you should provide new statistics as would a good and proper regulator and public body. Bearing the above in mind, I would ask you to reconsider and provide the information on cases over two years, under the Freedom of Information Act.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Ali
Nationally elected to represent doctors, on the mandate the GMC is unfit for purpose
Please excuse brevity, typos and sense that may be scrambled by autocorrect, formatting, etc