QUALIFICATIONS OF ASSISTANT REGISTRAR acting for gmc in my complaint

The request was refused by General Medical Council.

Dear General Medical Council,
although I have already asked for f.o.i in response to syed hamdani at the gmc I was refused this info by pre printed paragraphs I was emailed which would have taken mins to download. I was informed that I could appeal this decision by writing to jgraves, then if I was refused the info I could appeal to another body, how many layers of red tape are tax payers paying for.
I am using this public website because I think everybody in my position should have their story made public the information I am requesting is the name and qualifications of the assistant registrar who made the decision on behalf of the G.M.C that the "UNASSISTED DOUBLE LEG LIFT " the consultant rheumatologist demanded I do was appropriate for me a 61 year old female who has suffered scoliosis most of my life and recently suffering lower back and joint problems.i am now in a worse condition now than before visiting this consultant rheumatologist at Christchurch outpatients bournemouth
I have done research on " DOUBLE LEG LIFT " IT IS NOT EVEN RECOMMENDED FOR FIT YOUNG PEOPLE AND CERTAINLY NOT FOR SOMEONE WITH MY CONDITION. I CANNOT BELIEVE THIS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR HAS THE APPROPRIATE QUALIFICATIONS AND AM LOOKING FOR THIS INFORMATION UNDER THE F.O.I GUIDLINES

Yours faithfully,

shirley gardner

Dear General Medical Council,
MY REQUEST ON THE 22ND OCTOBER 2014 FOR THE NAME AND QUALIFICATIONS OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR WHO ADVISED YOU THE G.M.C THAT AN " UNASSISTED DOUBLE LEG LIFT "
WAS APPROPRIATE FOR A 61 YEAR OLD WITH SCOLIOSIS, LOWER BACK AND JOINT PROBLEMS HAS NOT YET BEEN ANSWERED.
by law you should have normally responded promptly and by 19th NOVEMBER.
surely this is not a difficult request for the gmc to answer

Yours faithfully,

shirley gardner

Julian Graves (0161 923 6351), General Medical Council

Dear Ms Gardner

 

With regard to your email, I can confirm that I have now responded to your
request for an internal review to the personal email address you provided
for me.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Julian Graves

 

 

Julian Graves

Information Access Manager

General Medical Council

3 Hardman Street

Manchester

M3 3AW

 

Tel. no: 0161 923 6351

Email: [email address]

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

show quoted sections

Dear Julian Graves (0161 923 6351),

response to my f.o.i. request through this website only
Yours sincerely,

shirley gardner

shirley gardner left an annotation ()

I have been sent a response from mr graves at g.m.c
saying " having reviewed the request relating to qualifications which was your original request-we will respond separately regarding to their name. HAVING REVIEWED THE REQUEST RELATING TO QUALIFICATIONS. I am satisfied it was appropriate not to provide their qualifications to you. I believe that the relevant exemption from disclosure is as follows.
SECTION 40 (5) ( 3) ( I ) of the FOIA states that the duty to confirm or deny whether information is held does not arise if the act of confirmation or denial would breach any of the principles of the data protection act 1998 ( DPA ). we believe it is reasonable for doctors to expect that, if complaints are made are made against them which have not progressed to a public hearing or do not result in any action on their registration. the fact such complaints have been made would be kept confidential and would not be released into the public domain would breach the first principles of the DPA which requires that the processing of personal data is fair and lawful

Julian Graves (0161 923 6351), General Medical Council

Dear Ms Gardner

 

With regard to your email below and our further exchanges I have now
considered your Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) request for the
name of the Assistant Registrar who provided advice in relation to your
complaint. I am sorry for the delay in responding to you.

 

I believe that the exemption from disclosure that applies in this case is
as follows:

 

Section 40(5)(b)(i) of the FOIA states that the duty to confirm or deny
whether information is held does not arise if the act of confirmation or
denial would breach any of the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998
(DPA). We believe that it is reasonable for doctors to expect that, if
complaints are made against them which are not progressed to a public
hearing or do not result in any action on their registration, the fact
such complaints had been made would be kept confidential and would not be
released into the public domain. Therefore, we believe that to confirm or
deny whether or not any information is held beyond that already in the
public domain would breach the first principle of the DPA, which requires
that the processing of personal data is fair and lawful. 

I am sorry that I have been unable to supply you with this information
under the FOIA. You have the right of appeal against my decision to refuse
to supply the information you requested. If you wish to appeal please set
out in writing your grounds for wishing to do so and send these to me at
the email address provided. 

We are continuing to consider your request under the DPA. A response under
the DPA will be sent to your personal email address and not to this
address because this site is for responding to FOI requests only.

Yours sincerely

 

Julian Graves

 

 

Julian Graves

Information Access Manager

General Medical Council

3 Hardman Street

Manchester

M3 3AW

 

Tel. no: 0161 923 6351

Email: [1][email address]

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

show quoted sections

Sylvia Rushbrooke left an annotation ()

I am so sorry for you - the GMC use the same standard respoinse when asking for anyones qualificiations and use the exemption they have as a way to avpoid giving the information - as the public we have no idea of the qualifications of the persons makeing serious decisions whether to investigate a Dr or not - we do not know if they have any experience or knowledge or qualifications in the matter complained of - I am not even sure anyone knows what a registrar is in this context - what does that even mean ...what is certain is for years the GMC have failed the public as self policing does not work and they are so reluctant to even make and investigation hardly any get fully looked at - maybe ask for the stats of our of how many complaints made - are actually fully investigated and hwo many reach a positive conclusion for the complainer/victim

Sasha Rodoy left an annotation ()

As I have publicly expressed for many years, the organisation is not fit for purpose, answering to no one, especially not the public they are supposed to protect.

Following recent FOI requests to both GMC and MPTS, belated responses from the GMC predictably refusing to provide information, quoting exemptions and unmerited excuses.

The MPTS overdue response will no doubt echo the GMC, the claimed separate organisations in fact joined at the hip!

The GMC needs to be torn down and rebuilt, with input from various sectors - including patient advocates like myself

Lots more information about GMC and MPTS behaviour on my social media pages, and I am happy to speak with anyone wanting to discuss further - especially journalists 👀

S. Ali left an annotation ()

If it helps: None of the GMC Assistant Registrars have any medical qualification. None are doctors but may have had first aid training. Minimum qualifications are 5 GCSEs. The GMC is a medico-LEGAL quango (closed lucrative legal group). There can be confusion as medical registrars are doctors but here it is misused to confuse medical doctors, as GMC Assistant Registrars (and by extension Decision Makers at triage and other non-transparent departments) have no medical qualification.

The Information Commissioner and General Regulatory Chamber are aware the GMC IAT responding to FOIA are told to be obstructive but have not always acted as they require specific wording in complaints. This is a bad-GMC-practice which is not in the Public Interest.

The GMC Registrar is also the CEO and he too has no medical qualification but was the Conservative Party Health-related aide to Jeremy Hunt.

The separate GMC Chairman is however a well-recognised and respected doctor but does not get involved in the main dirty FTP prosecution side of the GMC.

It appears deliberately not clear if the Assistant Registrar for the GMC FTP department are the same as the Assistant Registrar for the GMC MPTS department.

Sasha Rodoy left an annotation ()

S.Ali wrote: ‘The separate GMC Chairman is however a well-recognised and respected doctor but does not get involved in the main dirty FTP prosecution side of the GMC.’

On that I must disagree, as I have no doubt whatsoever that Carrie MacEwen is totally involved in the GMC’s desperate and unmerited attempt to keep me away from Dr Prashant Jindal’s yet to be relisted FtP hearing as a member of the public, having already silenced my witness evidence with a lie!

Details re Carrie’s dislike for me posted 31 August on my LinkedIn page, also on Fb etc…