Margaret Haywood, The Brighton Sussex Hospital and Elder Abuse

Margaret Haywood went undercover for the BBC and secretly filmed neglect/abuse of elderly patients at the Royal Sussex Hospital in Brighton, England.

After the film was broadcast, the trust responsible for the hospital admitted and apologised for "serious lapses in the quality of care".

I think we can take it that this was the most anodyne formula the trust's lawyers felt they could get away with.

The Times reports today that the Nursing and Midwifery Council has found that Ms Haywood had prioritised filming over her obligations as a nurse and had breached patient confidentiality.

In consequence, she has been struck off and cannot act as a nurse. That is, her career has been destroyed.

Oh, by the way, it is also reported that all of the patients (subsequent to the filming) waived confidentiality. I would too. If I was a vulnerable elderly person and was being maltreated but with no means of doing anything about it, I would positively want someone, anyone, to do something about it and by whatever means possible.

Ordinary mortals will find the decision to strike this nurse off the register inexplicable other than as a protective act of revenge and as a blatant attempt to discourage others from blowing the whistle on National Health Service malpractice.

She did a greater service to these patients than the hospital or any of their other doctors or nurses.

I hope Margaret Haywood takes this matter further. I am sure she has access to proper advice and I can think of many lawyers who would take this case on a no win no fee basis.

The decision of the Nursing and Midwifery Council, on the facts available in the public domain, is an utter disgrace and wholly against the public interest.

Samuel Edwin Ashby: The Abusive Aussie Vet

Apparently, Mr Ashby felt that it was a defence, to a charge that his multiple abuse of staff and customers at four different pharmacies was professional misconduct, that he was just a typical Aussie loudmouth. Err, no, mate.

This case is, in the real sense of the word, a tragedy. Mr Ashby has been destroyed by a fatal flaw in his own character. He clearly believes himself to be a wonderful pharmacist and that those he was compelled to work with were, simply, his inferiors. Even if he was right, it is that belief that has lead to his downfall.

If you read this case you will find the sad conclusion:

MR ASHBY: I have no money. I cannot pay anything. I have nothing left.

MRS JUSTICE DOBBS: That does not stop the court from making a costs order, but you say you have got no means?

MR ASHBY: No. I have nothing left.

MRS JUSTICE DOBBS: Anything else you want to add in relation to that?

MR ASHBY: No.

MRS JUSTICE DOBBS: There will be an order that the appellant pay the respondent's costs in the sum of £14,482.82.

MR BRADLEY: I am grateful.

Mr Ashby was not a King, or even a high ranking politician, so this tragedy is not properly to be described as Shakesperian, but it has the essential elements of such tragedy; just on a smaller, perhaps more human, scale.

Sally Clark is Dead: Let the Libel Begin

Our beloved professional experts now have something to trouble their consciences. Well, not really. Nothing much does seem to trouble those consciences.

When my firm could afford to do legal aid work I did a number of child care cases and the thing that really troubled me was the dispassionate approach of the so-called experts.

"Dispassionate" sounds like a word you would want applied to your "approach" as a "professional". It is different for each professional involed:

The Lawyer for the Parent

Not so for lawyers involved in this kind of work. What you need is a solicitor who is "involved" and "passionate" but also one who can stand back and be "objective".

It is a big ask and I have unbounded admiration for those of my colleagues who still do this kind of work in spite of goernmment restrictions on legal aid. (As a side note, I may hold the record for resigning from franchises with the Legal Services Commission in that I have done it twice).

The Social Workers

I can only speak from personal experience as a lawyer who used to represent parents. I am biassed.

Social Services (the "SS") tend in my view to live up to their acronym.

They intervene on a lottery basis (there may be many worse families in the same street who do not attract their attention) but once they have done so they hang on like terriers. Nothing you can say will detract from their certainty that they are right.

The Local Authority Lawyers

Poorly paid and overworked as they are they should not do as, in my experience, they do do.

They are the ciphers of their colleagues in the SS. They inherit all the bad traits and contribute nothing. They are the prime examples of lawyers acting as mere "mouthpieces".