‘Trial by media’ drives Sark doctor out
Saturday 11th February 2012, 5:00PM GMT.
Sark GP Dr Peter Counsell is going to leave the job, citing ‘trial by media' and criticism by the Sark Newsletter as the reasons. (Photo montage by Peter Frankland) 1219517
TRIAL by media and the Sark Newsletter’s exaggerated importance of the Brecqhou helicopter forced the island’s doctor to resign, it was stated yesterday.
The publication’s editor, Kevin Delaney, was not available to respond to claims made by Dr Peter Counsell, who said in a letter to islanders that the newsletter had decided his guilt from the outset.
Residents had petitioned for him to stay after a string of stinging articles from the newsletter.
It claimed his decisions to arrange emergency transfers from the island by the marine ambulance Flying Christine, rather than the Brecqhou helicopter, had caused patients genuine harm.
Dr Counsell said the criticism was too difficult to bear.
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Saturday 26 May
- Laid-off staff see jobs re-advertised next day
- The Week - Roots Manuva interview
- Royal celebrations of yesteryear
- The Week - Jubilee Food
- Sport - Angus Mackay takes Gib job
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
That’s a shame. I do hope the good doctor will reconsider.
Report abuse
This is an absolute disgrace.
An excellent, talented, honest, decent, diligent, young Doctor has been wrongly accused of professional miscounduct.
The people of Sark are deeply saddened, frustrated and angry, and are now quite understandably apoplectic with rage.
Report abuse
at last the truth is out,its a pity it could not be explained before having to resign.
all the public wanted was a truthfull reason why the chopper can or cannot be used in certain cases to put the record straight.
p.s i hear a concrete pad is being laid in a certain part of sark?
Report abuse
also the reluctance of the chopper pilot to meet sark doctor to talk about medevacs says it all
Report abuse
http://www.sarksurgery.com/images/pdf/Sark_Dr_Statement_100212.pdf
http://www.sarksurgery.com/images/pdf/
This is the doctor’s full statement. It was a lovely day for a protest march today!
Report abuse
Reading the doctor’s statement, I can fully understand the position he finds himself in.
The Sark News letter has defamed his character and in any other jurisdiction, it would be taken to court for defamation of character.
Unfortunatly I believe the Bailiwick law is rather restrictive in this area. Which is a great shame and my wholehearted support goes to him and his family.
Report abuse
Describing the Sark Newsletter as the “media” is completely ridiculous. It is nasty, self-published propaganda of the basest kind and its vilification of anyone who criticises its owners has, and continues, to make life misery for many in Sark. How can everyone not see it for what it is?
Report abuse
I’m bewildered as to what many of you people are making of that statement in all honesty? It starts off stating the bleeding obvious. It moves into areas that are common knowledge and then aims to totally mislead the reader.
There are numerous inaccuracies contained within. I don’t doubt they will be a source of contention for the following SNL.
Readers must not forget it has taken over one month for this statement to reach the public domain. Does one wonder why that has been the case?
Those of a more sensible nature will realise the SNL and its Editor ask questions that are reasonable and should merit a reply. Had this topic been dealt with in that fashion none of this would have came to be.
It’s this that goes to the rotten core of most things political. Numerous questions are asked but rarely ever get answered.
People will note that I asked Tony Ventress for details to be made public on the Seigneurie Garden Trust.
Apparently, it’s something which we all own? What’s strange is I, along with all but a select few, have no idea exactly what my entitlements are or if I do indeed benefit in any way, shape or form. Well, not surprisingly, I’m still waiting for those details. That’s part and parcel, being very typical, with how things are.
We have one Shepherd and his carefully selected obedient dogs. We are rounded up at their convenience to most definitely pay taxes. We are expected to pay up and then shut up.
Some readers will choose to give the statement released far more credit than it deserves. That’s entirely up to them.
Those who are more objective will see it for little more than a stunt aimed at tugging at the heart strings of the reader whilst doing its utmost to mislead them.
I will now prove that!
The Doctor conveniently complains about the lack of room the helicopter has to offer. If we look at that in a different light I would say he has foolishly scored an own goal.
How much room or comfort is afforded to any patient whilst in transit on the tow hitch of a tractor down the bumpy hill whilst suffering from whatever condition that may be? Precious little. Here is a link that shows exactly that so others can reach a clearer understanding.
http://www.thisisguernsey.com/news/2011/12/30/carriage-drivers-present-new-link-box/
The time it takes to negotiate the bumpy hill, often in unsavoury weather conditions, manhandle the patient into whatever the vessel of choice is on that particular occasion, the helicopter would have left Sark and landed on Guernsey.
What I will highlight as significant and suggest is an area where great improvements can be made is where the situation on Guernsey is lacking. It would be an enormous benefit to all involved if a helipad could be constructed at the PEH.
Report abuse
I seriously wonder on which island you are a ‘resident’?
You clearly support, believe, or possibly even contribute towards the weekly diatribe in the SNL?
Therefore you are clearly out of touch with real public opinion, and the facts. I suspect that you are possibly a former Sark Larker?
Remember it is always dangerous to believe your own propaganda.
Report abuse
This is so misleading! It looks like the doctor’s link box is the main transport for patients which is total rubbish!! The main ambulance is a converted back part of a proper ambulance, fully equipped. The linkbox is for the “walking wounded” or older people who cannot get up or down the hill in the usual way-it is NOT the ambulance!
Report abuse
EERM, Bramble, The trailer ambulance is nowhere near fully equipped. Had you seen a modern ambulance you would realise ours looks like a shopping mall in Soviet Russia!
Report abuse
It is no where near a month since the doctor resigned. Plus which, he is a busy man running a single doctor practise which is open twice most days and he is always on call for emergencies.Add the fact that he has a young family, I don’t suppose he has much time left over for defending himself from the indefensible.
Report abuse
Are you sure you’re a Sark Resident? If so, why are you talking about our doctor’s linkbox? You must know that we have ambulances on Sark – tractor drawn, roomy, equiped and comfortable. These are used to transport patients to the harbour.
Report abuse
hazel. I think you have hit the nail on the head. I too do not believe that S.R. is on the Island or on the same planet as the rest of us. For that matter.
Most, if not all of the posting make no sense at all.
Report abuse
I wrote in similar vein to the Guernsey press in January 2011 and nothing appears to have changed.
This whole issue is far bigger than just this current and latest contretemps over the Sark Doctor.
It has been running ever since the Barclay family built their Castle in Brechou and slowly started purchasing Sark piece by piece.
The family should hold no more influence on the way that Sark is run than any other individual living on Sark or Brecqhou, the running of Sark is down to Sark’s Government. Since their arrival on Brecqhou some years ago they appear, to an outsider living on Guernsey, to have used their influence, in an attempt to force Sark down a route that was not necessarily the choosing of the majority of the people of Sark.
There is no doubt that SEM has provided investment into Sark and employed quite a number of Sark people, but at what cost to the Sark community and way of life?
Unfortunately this has now overflowed into health.
I will repeat the link to the Doctor’s ststement, everyone should read it.
http://www.sarksurgery.com/images/pdf/Sark_Dr_Statement_100212.pdf
Report abuse
Yes they have invested in Sark,, which they consider gives them the right to have more say than anyone else,,, but what they omit to say everytime is that they have invested in their own properties!!!!,,, just like everyone else has,,it is ridiculous that because they have bigger wallets (but no representation in CP (as their chosen candidaites did not get voted in) that gives them anymore right to decide how the rest of should live. They did not have to buy all these properties,, and they did not inherit them ,they CHOSE to buy ,and as such they must have either thought that their money would buy them the right to dictate to our CP, or that the rest of us would be in awe of that kind of wealth,,,.
Well the one things that goes along way to make Sark so special. is that luckily with people here the size of your bank balance is not the defining factor,..which is not the case practically everywhere else,, we take you as we find… and long may it continue….
Report abuse
Gary Blanchard.
Please don,t think I was having a pop at your post,,far from it,, just a reply thats all ,,no offence was meant..
Report abuse
Fabulous irony. So had the meddling Bs and their little sturmbannfuhrer left Sark’s constitution alone, they could have bought themselves loads of tenement seats in Chief Pleas?
It’s really too funny!
Report abuse
Plus one,
no offence taken
I’m afraid my post above bears little relationship with what i actually posted.
It was vetted and cut right down to what you read above and has lost most of the stronger points i made.
I have pointed this out to the This is Guernsey moderator.
Report abuse
Thinks will give up Telegraph as I did Times due to my not wanting to support those owners
Another paper down the kitty litter tray
Report abuse
Yes, me too.
If they want to have an enquiry into the doctor’s conduct in this matter why don’t they repeat their statements in the Times or Telegraph, this would come to the attention of the GMC.
Oh yes, this would enable Dr Counsell to sue.
Report abuse
I don’t live in sark but;
Sark resident has to be Kevin Delaney in disguise or be on his payroll.
Report abuse
Sark Resident,
And how does the patient get from home to the helicopter.
I take it the same method as from home to the Flying Christine or lifeboat. Your arhument is full of holes, whereas the Dr’s statement makes complete sense.
Report abuse
Sark Resident is bewildered. Now there’s a surprise!
A classic reaction of a propagandist having been caught with their contradictory trousers down is to express confusion and lack of understanding, in order that other “off topic” issues can be snuck back in to the debate by way of distraction. And I doubt if the phrase “in all honesty” has ever been more cynically abused. And then a variety of tediously familiar distractions are thrown in to try and deflect from the main issue.
The key topic at last “outed” here is the bullying and harassment of the SNL. The real people of Sark are just starting to display the nerve to face down the bullies – do not bottle it. In a simply abhorrent effort to justify his (I am assuming) many contrarian postings on these pages, Sark Resident is implying – at best – that the doctor an easily manipulated simpleton. So who do we all believe?
Sark Resident has made such an exemplary arse of himself by now, that I would not be surprised if the Delaeny and Dawes double act didn’t come along in a minute to claim that Sark Resident is in fact an agent of the Establishment, seeking to discredit the SNL! However, the SNL needs no help in that respect, as a glance at any issue will confirm.
Report abuse
Correction, it is a triple act – Dawes, Delaney and Donnelly with the unknown on the Island Claire Wiseman.
Report abuse
If the Sark Newsletter is “media” then I am a banana. And I love Sark Resident’s imperious use of the phrase “you people” – such revealing throwaways have lost US politicians elections! See
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081026053216AA9p0PQ
But we kinda realised that SR is not much of a “man of the people” a while ago, did we not?
Report abuse
Dr Counsell is obviously a professional, the decision he made was his, and only his to make. Reading his statement it’s clear that he made the right one.
Surely he can sue the Sark Newsletter for this blatant defamation, or at least harassment.
Sark Newsletter and it’s staff should hang their heads in shame.
Sark residents should start a petition to have this newsletter and it’s spiteful ‘ reporters ‘ removed from circulation. Shame it isn’t owned by Rupert Murdoch, he would have shut it down.
Report abuse
Typical behaviour I’ve come to expect from people in Guernsey and it’s islands, backstabbers everywhere.
Report abuse
I have one of the oldest people from sark living downstairs and she is upset to put it mildly to see what a few people have done to a special island her family and freinds , people move to somewhere cause they like it not to change to there gain by taking over and bullying people , i hope something can be done to stop this you have lost to much of a way of life when wil it stop when the whole island is taken over ?
Report abuse
So to summarise the most relevant part the doctor addressed, he said:-
My clinical judgement was that transfer by sea was appropriate and would not, as a result of the findings I made, cause harm to my patient. I would not have made such a decision if I had thought there was a risk of that.
[and]
I do not, however, believe I made the wrong decision and neither does the patient or her family. A letter from the patient’s son who is a Hospital Consultant of 30 years experience records the family’s views. I have their permission to attach this letter (appendix 2).
[and]
I can assure you that my decisions are not improperly influenced by either Sark’s government or any other person. I always put the patient first.
[which of course is at odds with what Mrs Beaumont's brother quite clearly states in his letter:
"Mr Beaumont did indeed travel with her on the lifeboat, preferring to entrust himself and his wife to the advice and professional skills of our Doctor, the Lifeboat crew and the St John’s medics in preference to a private helicopter.
[Definition of preference - selecting of someone or something over another or others. b. The right or chance to so choose.]
So who is right?
Did the doctor choose or did Mr Beaumont?
Report abuse
I can only conclude that you are being deliberately idiotic.
It is always the patient’s choice. The doctor would have reached a decision as to what he judged to be the best course of action and would have advised the patient accordingly. The patient then decides what to do.
It is quite clear that when the doctor is referring to his decision he is referring to his clinical assessment. Mrs Beaumont’s brother then refers to a different decision – the decision as to what to do based on that advice.
You clearly have no expert or first hand knowledge and so on what basis can you question the views of those who were there?
Report abuse
Terry – of course D_A is being deliberately provocative. The ancient art of “trolling” is even older than the fief on Sark.
This whole debate moved past the Beaumont chopper story anyway and firmly onto the bullying, harassment and intimidation of the SNL and by induction, the SEM and its controllers/owners.
It’s a pity the Guernsey Press does not have a comment rating scheme where we could give him Kevin’s other agents the thumbs down – or simply set to ignore his comments. But don’t worry, after the march it’s obvious that there is even less support for his point of view some might have suspected.
Much to Kevin’s ultimate horror, it is self evident that democracy is alive and well on Sark!
Report abuse
D_A, So you’re going to ignore the fact that the helicopter will not pick up Paramedics first.
You’re going to ignore the fact that because of this, if the helicopter were to be used, the Marine Ambulance Personnel still need to endanger themselves in order to ensure medical cover on the island in the doctors absence.
To my mind it doesn’t make sense to endanger the lives of both crews in stormy wether, so I’m with the Marine Ambulance every time; especially as it has to come anyway and it has the correct expertise and facilities!
Report abuse
Having read Dr Counsells resignation it is clear that he has acted in an extremely objective rational and level minded manner when considering the option to be able to use the Barclay’s helicopter in a medical emergency on Sark. As such he presented a very thorough appraisal of both options and I think anybody reading this will be left in no doubt that patient care had always been his priority.
As for Delaney and the SNL, I think it is appaling that he is allowed to continue to publish such damaging claims unchallenged, and you can be sure that if the shoe was on the other foot that the Barclay’s legal swat team would be on you like a ton of bricks. The fact that he knows this is the reason why he continues to print such vile rubbish.
Delaney has always played the democracy card as the rationale behind his actions but when the entire community who he professes to want to ‘save’ stands up and challenges him he describes them as “a typical rent-a-mob organised by Sark’s feudal fundamentalists”.
Delaney wants Democracy, but it has to be a certain kind of democracy.
Report abuse
I didn’t join the March. Why? I couldn’t tell if it was to Support the doctor or just an anti-SNL publicity stunt. It’s funny, how many people turned up to march and protest when the CP’s decided to buy the Belle without public consultation? How many people protested against the mooring’s fiasco or the shipping monopoly, which cuts out any chance of cheaper travel or freight. How many people agreed with the waste of £25k ayear of taxpayers money to a best mate of our “Chief Minister” in Alderney, when there is no clear or defined benefit to the Island? How Many people demonstrated against the decision and showed their disgust when a valued and respected member of our community was shunned and lost her job because she actually had to use the helicopter in a medical emergency….. mmm, I thought so. No matter how you look at this, the SNL does ask the questions openly,that would otherwise just be muttered quietly in the pub and brings out into the open what the CP’s have been getting away with. The demonstration just passed, was a clear indication of how when our Feudal Shepard orders his sheepdogs to bark, we lambs come running at his call. Because I never demonstrated my support for the march, I’m watching my back, as I sure other people will be.
I don’t work for SEM, will never do so, however, people marching against free speech and press, My conscience puts that on the same level as supporting someone like Robert Mugabe.
Report abuse
Oh my goodness, we needed a good laugh to start the week, and we got one:
“people marching against free speech and press”
Sprotley appears to be just another SEM troll, trying to steer the discussion away from the basic fact that the SNL screwed up in a HUGE way and has now blown all cover and pretence to credibility in the process.
All Sark can very safely ignore him, and just get on with petitioning the MoJ to mete out the justice that the island has been denied since cash started to do the talking – or more accurately – shouting.
Goodbye, SNL, you will not be missed. Please take your pals with you.
Report abuse
SW.
There is no doubt that they did screw up here. However, which party do you wish to be screwed by? GP’s that take your money for their own pocket or somebody who actually wants to invest in the island? As for Ignoring other people, You personally speak for the whole of Sark do you????? That’s the sort of rubbish that got Sark into the trouble it’s in, by ignoring what’s happening elsewhere in the 20th & 21st century. I take it that SW want’s to live in a Stalinist regime, where the party good out weighs the good of the people! WAKE UP!
Report abuse
Sprotley your view is obscure & absurd.
Sark did not invite the Barclays to invest in Sark. It was their choice.
But why would anyone want to come to any small community and not show respect for it’s rich history, heritage & tradition?
Why did they not attempt to engage the residents of Sark?
Why didn’t they ask what vision we (Sarkees) would like to see for the future of Sark?
People on Sark know each other and enagage each other on a daily basis. We are a small close knit community and we know each other. We look into each others eyes. If you happen to be shy we also have telephones.
There is nothing Stalinist about Sark. Sarkee’s are decent, honest, simple people who deserve more respect.
Report abuse
Sark 0′Zee,
I am a Sarkee, family has been here centuries. The Imput from some people who haven’t been here for even 25 years have wrecked the island. They now hold positions of power in such a STALINISTIC way, that public opinion is never heard. Look at our Chief Minister, been here 10 mins? Why was he elected? It’s a joke, if you speak out then you are “labelled”. There are few of the CP that think “Animal Farm” and “1984″ are an ideal political model to follow! Just show me the way to Room 101
Report abuse
We have enjoyed our time on Sark as it is like no other vacation destination, and the idea it should have become controlled by one company with far more money than soul, is a terrible shame.
As you all know, Sark is a unique haven that survives as a community by being different. Big corporations demand conformity, and will always try and stamp out the individual, frequently using the same techniques as fascist dictators
Here are some top warning signs of fascist state that you all need to watch for:-
Control mass media
Identification of enemies/scapegoats
Cynically accuse enemies of the precisely the abuses that you actually practise
Labour power is suppressed
Corporate power unquestioned
Obsession with crime and punishment
Obsession with security
Disdain for intellectuals and the arts
So then, who or what does this remind you all of?
Be very careful, Sark. Your many friends are watching out for you.
Report abuse
Surely the best way to stop the SNL in it’s tracks is for it to be classed as “junk mail” and for each household to “opt-in” to take it then. Then if it is delivered without it being requested. The law can be used to stop it’s delivery.
Report abuse
gsybloke – that’s easier said than done. The demented rantings are published online where anyone can find them. What does anyone think this is doing for Sark’s reputation and future as an idyllic holiday destination? Seems like a huge own-goal for the SEM people, but when did rational behaviour get in the way of the SNL’s ravings?
sprotely – please give it a rest. We have got your number, and we’re bored. Why not go and sort out a proper fascist regime somewhere like Zimbabwe, eh? (And they probably won’t worry that there is no apostrophe in “wants”)
I am busy working on the plans for the Appropriations Committee that will be taking charge of SEM assets when they a democratically confiscated.
;-)
Report abuse
One thing the newsletter fails to point out is that over the last year the helicopter was requested 9 TIMES. 7 of which it was unavailable, another time there was going to be a 5hr delay. This meant that it has only been used once.
Report abuse
Is that definitely true? If so, God help us if we think we can rely on them. And Sprotly, yes, I have seen the inside of the ambulance and the dedicated people like the doctor &David Melling who are always on call 24/7 and do such a magnificent job for us all
Report abuse
Really? That’s quite sobering in the light of the SNL’s tireless venal and unpleasant campaign against the elderly, the sick and bereaved families.
Is the Flying Christine available for the occupants of Brecqhuo? Maybe WE should be mounting a campaign on THEIR behalf.
Someone please set up a list so that the Barclays’ servants can let their preferences be known for a marine medevac.
Report abuse
Lets not forget what Delaney said after he lost in the 2008 election ‘Sark has written the longest suicide note in history’ he said.
I believe he is implementing just that !
Report abuse
Peter,
attempting to implement, there is a big difference.
Report abuse
TL: “It is always the patient’s choice. The doctor would have reached a decision as to what he judged to be the best course of action and would have advised the patient accordingly.”
A least one person on this thread who is capable of debating the subject.
So the doctor obviously decided, that the evacuation of the patient was “not time-critical”, because if it had been a life or death situation virtually all other considerations would have been overlooked.
In response the SNL123 issues, they can be answered as follows:-
Q1: This begs the question why she was not taken to hospital with the minimum of delay and comfort?
A1: Speed was not the most important factor
Q2: Why was it necessary for Guernsey’s lifeboat and crew to be called to muster late in the night?
A2: Speed was not the most important factor
Q3: Why was a gravely ill elderly lady not given the opportunity of an emergency airlift by helicopter to save valuable time?
A3: Speed was not the most important factor and so Mr Beaumont chose to go by Lifeboat
Factual Statement : Whoever took the decision not to transfer Mrs Beaumont to hospital by helicopter, flying there in a matter of minutes, but instead sending her by lifeboat, a procedure that at best takes an hour and forty minutes, bears a heavy responsibility.
Factual note: The decision was taken by Mr Beaumont
Observational Opinion: It is astounding that the emergency services did not insist on an air evacuation.
Observational note: Because the doctor had advised Mr Beaumont that speed was not the most important factor.
Public Interest Open Question: Islanders should ask themselves whether they would wish their child, mother, father, grandparent or any other relative or friend to suffer a journey such as that endured by Mrs Beaumont on Thursday night in a situation where their lives are at risk.
Public Interest note: The question is still valid, but in Mrs Beaumont’s case, Mr Beaumont decided it would be better than travelling by helicopter.
In response the SNL124 issues, they can be answered as follows:-
Factual Statement 1: Whether she was seen by a doctor at that time is not known
Factual note: We now know she must have, as the doctor has explained in his recent response.
Q4: Who made the decision to reject the Brecqhou helicopter?
A4: Mr Beaumont because Speed was not the most important factor and he decided it would be better than travelling by helicopter.
Q5: Who made the decision to send a seriously ill octogenarian lady on a boat trip in rough seas and gale force winds and a two and a half hours’ wait from the call -out?
A5: Mr Beaumont because Speed was not the most important factor and he decided it would be better than travelling by helicopter.
Q6: Why did Mr Beaumont not insist that his wife have the best possible chance of recovery and perhaps survival?
A6: Based on the advice of the doctor I guess he did what he thought was best.
Assumption 1: Everybody will know that, like every other doctor who has held this position on Sark, the doctor will be under immense pressure not to use the helicopter from the Medical Committee under Chairman Diane Baker
Assumption 1 note: That may or may not be the case, but in this instance Mr Beaumont made that choice
Public opinion: Furthermore, many people believe that Michael Beaumont’s deep-rooted prejudices, hostility and vindictiveness, towards all things Brecqhou would cause him not to allow his seriously ill wife to be evacuated by the Brecqhou helicopter – even if her life depended on it.
Public opinion note: As we now know that it was Mr Beaumont’s decision, those who believe the above may well have a valid point.
Supposition: You can, however, be sure that neither Mr Beaumont nor the doctor volunteered to travel with Mrs Beaumont on the boat that night.
Supposition note: We now know that Mr Beaumont did indeed travel and the SNL has apologised for getting it wrong.
Assumption 1: if Mr Beaumont was against the idea, and we must assume he was, then Dr Counsell, whatever pressure he was under, should have overruled him and, in the best interest of his patient, insisted that the Brecqhou helicopter was the best possible way of getting Mrs Beaumont to hospital. The doctor did not.
Assumption note 1: Speed was not the most important factor and so Mr Beaumont chose to go by Lifeboat
Assumption 2: The manner in which Mrs Beaumont’s emergency evacuation was handled shows a complete lack of compassion and concern for her wellbeing.
Assumption note 2: It was Mr Beaumont’s decision.
Public Interest: If it was the doctor, who had full knowledge of her medical condition, who made the decision to transfer her by boat in gale force winds and horrendous sea conditions, it also raises the question whether it in effect was wilful negligence.
Public Interest note: It was the doctor’s advice that Speed was not the most important factor and Mr Beaumont chose the method of transport. If such a patient suffered unduly from that advice then there may be a charge of wilful negligence, but I surely one needs to have some evidence!
Almost an accusation: The Sark Newsletter has no hesitation in saying that the conduct of both Michael Beaumont and Dr Counsell has the appearance of wilful negligence.
Almost an accusation note: It may have the appearance of wilful negligence to the writer of the above, however without evidence nobody can be sure.
ALL IN ALL I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY THE DOCTOR RESIGNED AS THERE WAS NO PERSONAL ATTACK ON HIM WITH REGARDS TO THE PATIENT CONCERNED.
Report abuse
Devils_Advocate
You know what? I and most others probably can’t be arsed to rise to yet another troll. I can only assume that you enjoy trying to defending the indefensible; is your other hobby plane spotting or Sudoku?
But the game is up. The people have plucked up the nerve and spoken. Delaney has shot himself in the foot again, and there is a sense of relief in the Island that Pandora’s box was flung open, and now even if Delaney fires everyone and closes everything (again) then it only makes taking it all in “Island Ownership” rather simpler. Bring it on, Kevin.
I wonder what a “slightly used” grapevine and barely used wine press is worth on eBay? Offers?
Report abuse
Your finding that there was no personal attack on the Doctor is strange.
The Doctor thought there was. The medical committee thought there was. 120 demonstrators thought there was. “This is Guernsey” thought there was.
(For ease of reference I quote from the article starting this thread:-
“Residents had petitioned for him to stay after a string of stinging articles from the newsletter.
It claimed his decisions to arrange emergency transfers from the island by the marine ambulance Flying Christine, rather than the Brecqhou helicopter, had caused patients genuine harm.” )
You appear to suggest that if I make an accusation against someone without evidence, I then have a defence, if criticised for making by saying it doesnt really matter because I made the accusation without evidence. A very odd doctrine.
I think you need a better argument then that if you want to convince anyone.
Report abuse
The BBC thought there was a personal attack on the Doctor by SNL as well.
Report abuse
Devils_Advocate,
what a load of drivel!
Report abuse
Which part did you not understand!
Report abuse
@Tim
A shorter answer might be “what part of it did you understand”?
I shall take a wild guess, but I wonder if the superbly obtuse D_A is a kid on half term, whose parent is a lawyer, who has given him or her a project to try and dredge up “a case for the defence.”
I can see no other possible explanation.
Report abuse
OMFG, you have a point, Now Then!
There is one particularly, err, feisty offspring I can think of, who’s parent actually provides their legal services to the SEM overlords, who, instead of doing her homework and cleaning out her hampster, has instead been sharpening her all knowing teenage teeth and educating us ‘local yobs’ on another comments board regarding teacher who decided to contest his five year licence being up….
who says charm and people skills isn’t genetic, ay…..?! ;)
Report abuse
GP reported on WHAT HAS BEEN DESCRIBED :-
SARK’S doctor has quit because of what has been described as a ‘campaign of harassment and lies’ against him.
The evidence of personal attack should be able to be quoted from the SNL’s that the Medical Committee responded to upon which the doctor based his decision upon.
DB – specifically which part of SNL 123/124 is there a personal attack, I haven’t read one!
Anyone please quote from the evidence.
Report abuse
The Barclays helicopter compared with a proper air ambulance is nothing more than an airborne bus without a bus stop at either end. The Flying Christine a modern fully equipped and professionally manned marine ambulance. Why would anyone let alone a Doctor except in extreme circumstances choose the former instead of the latter?. That Mr. Delaney should vilify the Doctor for using the marine ambulance shows either a total ignorance of the subject or a total lack of integrity on his part.
From reading the above posts there is something clearly rotten in Sark, and not all of it down to Sark Estate Management, though they seem to be at the bottom of the majority of it.
The Sark News Letter would appear to be a vehicle the purpose of which is to cause trouble and distrust amongst the people of Sark clearly illustrating the motives of those behind it.
Report abuse
Devils Advocate,,,
Please get your facts right,,,
At that time of night the Airport would have be closed…. so would need to be opened up, people would still need to be mustered out of their beds to drive there, open it up etc,, if the helicopter is based on Brechou, it would still have to wait until the Christine arrived before departing, as our Dr would have to travel with the patient as there would not be a paramedic on the helicopter, so we would have to have the paramedics from the said Christine /lifeboat to cover Sark until the doctor could return,,,,, so please tell me how you can state that it would take minutes to get someone to hospital via the helicopter,,, add to that the place where the helicopter has to land, which a long ride along the same “unmade roads” that Kevin Delaney is so fond of mentioning.. oh and in the same Ambulance that is used for taking people to the harbour,another of Mr Delaneys favourite moans,, plus an unmade farm track on his masters land…oh nearly forgot the nice long stretch of cobbles….wow a quick and comfy journey,,do see what I,m getting at here???? your arguement really does make you look either totally ignorant of how things work on Sark,, or desperate to try and convince people who don,t live here into believing that you really can be airlifted off this island in minutes,,,its tosh,,If it can be done in minutes and arrive here that quickly how come then Delaney and the pilot have not given a time line of how quickly they got the last casualty to hospital,, was that within minutes from been called,,, don,t think so,,and I,m damn sure if it was SNL would have made sure that everyone was well aware of it REPEATEDLY,,, and the reason that we have not had such an account is that in reality it takes just as long because of the afore mentioned reasons,,, but SNL like you do love to omit facts,,so keep trolling but I like most people see your name and scroll past your posts,,, the only reason I,m typing this is to let anyone who does not know sark can see the truth about airlifting off the island is not all its cracked up to be by the likes of you and SNl,, who are obviously one in the same,, I also have No intention of posting any reply to this,,so try and goud me if you feel the need but you will be waiting a long time,,,… bye. please excuse typo,s it,s late…
Report abuse
Regardless of my own feelings toward the Barclay’s, their agents and their methods, you could of course all just stop reading their bloody newsletter?!
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think anyone has yet been tied to a chair, eyelids staked open and been subjected to repetitive flashing images of the newsletter. Those who have read it have done so because they’ve chosen to, those who haven’t chosen to, probably haven’t read it.
Fight them and stand up for yourselves, by all means, but if what it really comes down to is that you’re offended by something you’ve read, simply stop reading it.
Report abuse
@boredofpbfalla
Please don’t miss the point, the self-appointed, not-voted-for SNL seeks to set the entire social and commercial agenda for the island, but is overtly a propaganda vehicle for the “economic overlord” that has already threatened to fire everyone and everything when he doesn’t get his own way. Accordingly, this is not something easily ignored.
Moreover, the distraction and “threat” of the SNL has effectively stifled a much needed more open debate on the island and its economy. The mostly unpaid Chief Pleas has a lot to address, and should not be allowed to assume that because the SNL has at last been thoroughly self-outed as a laughing stock, that they are off any hooks.
In fact, it is precisely because the SNL bogey is being laid to rest that a more constructive and consultative process needs to be developed – without the expensively calculated divisive tactics of acrimony, threats, bullying or harassment – that have been the trade marks of the SNL’s “reign of terror”.
Report abuse
D_A
I understand that the SNL is planning a special edition, wherein Kevin makes his annual awards.
I believe you are on the shortlist for the Grand Order of the OBN – with bar – and a special additional citation as the recipient of the St Jude “Special Award for the Pursuit of Hopelessly Lost Causes”.
And the Internet Society additionally wishes to acknowledge your exceptional services to trolling, with their rarely awarded “Billy Goat Gruff” medal.
Congratulations!
Report abuse
plus one – you obviously did not read my post correctly, it reflects the facts of what was stated by both parties.
Basically it was not the doctor who made the decision.
However – as the title of this thread is “Trial-by-media” I would still like to know:-
Specifically which part of SNL 123/124 is there a personal attack, can anyone please quote from the evidence.
Thanks.
Report abuse
What is the definition of a ‘personal attack’? surely having your professional capability questioned by a local news rag with a political agenda, written by self proclaimed journalists is the very definition of ‘Trial by Media’.
The article is full of assumptions and wasn’t researched to allow a second point of view, no one was interviewed, no quotes, no statements it’s just an article written by someone with a particular opinion, he’s talking for himself (and maybe his employers) but not for the island. It is clear to any reader that the writer has already made their mind up on the story and is reporting it in a very biased point of view.
Firstly the article in the 13th January edition is titled ‘Wilful Negligence?’ the article is then full of personal assumptions such as…
“…The Flying Christine was either unavailable or considered unsuitable…”
“…Normally a doctor would consider the urgency of a casualty and weight it up against the considerable cost of an airlift by helicopter…”
“…Everybody will know, that like every other doctor who has held this position on Sark, the doctor will be under immense pressure not to use the helicopter from the Medical Committee under Chairman Diane Baker, the wife of Counseiller Edric Baker, a feudal fundamentalist and anti-helicopter campaigner..”
(this might be the lie that Mrs Baker is alluding to in the statement released which is then set upon again by Mr Delaney).
“…The manner in which Mrs Beaumont’s emergency evacuation was handled shows a complete lack of compassion and concern for her wellbeing…”
( so not even waiting for a response now, has already made up his mind)
“…The decision by both men was made in the full knowledge of the serious medical condition of the patient…”
(where is he getting this ‘fact’ from, he didn’t interview anyone so again is just wording his assumption to fit in with the way he wants to portray the story.)
There is then a separate article underneath titled ‘There can be no excuse’.
So what’s the point of trying to defend your actions?
I probably would have done much the same in the Doctor’s shoes.
Report abuse
The “Trial by Media” claim by Doctor Counsell, prompted me to find where within the SNL’s 123/124 was evident. The article starts by posing the question, was there ‘Wilful Negligence?’
“The Flying Christine was either unavailable or considered unsuitable in the conditions and it was left to the lifeboat crew to make the trip to Sark and back.”
It is not a personal attack on the doctor, but a statement of the obvious, as it was too rough for the Flying Christine.
“…Normally a doctor would consider the urgency of a casualty and weight it up against the considerable cost of an airlift by helicopter…”
Again not an attack on the doctor, it is an explanation of what a doctor would do, as the cost was not a factor whereas as the doctor stated in his response letter regarding the use of a helicopter “it can provide quick patient transfer – important for casualties where speed is the most important factor”
“…Everybody will know, that like every other doctor who has held this position on Sark, the doctor will be under immense pressure not to use the helicopter from the Medical Committee under Chairman Diane Baker, the wife of Counseiller Edric Baker, a feudal fundamentalist and anti-helicopter campaigner..” (this might be the lie that Mrs Baker is alluding to in the statement released which is then set upon again by Mr Delaney).
It is not a personal attack on the doctor but does provide food for thought. The possibility that Mrs Baker might share the same views as her husband (re: use of a helicopter) and her position perceived by the public as a conflict of interest, if it were to be true, then one can easily imagine the pressure a doctor may be under, but that is not to say if the situation arose that the doctor would allow political pressure to influence his professional advice.
“…The manner in which Mrs Beaumont’s emergency evacuation was handled shows a complete lack of compassion and concern for her wellbeing…”
In reading that statement I was not sure whether this related to Mr Beaumont or the doctor or both, either way it was not an allegation but just an opinion from Mr Delaney based of the information he had been supplied at that time (ie: on the spot reporters).
“…The decision by both men was made in the full knowledge of the serious medical condition of the patient and the length of time and awful circumstances in which they condemned her to travel.”
Stating the obvious, of course the decision was made in the full knowledge ….of the serious medical condition of the patient and the final part of the sentence is where Mr Delaney’s expresses his opinion (based on information available at the time)
Although the doctor’s clinical judgement, that transfer by sea was appropriate, Mr Beaumont’s chose the Lifeboat in preference to a private helicopter.
I agree that where Mr Delaney expresses his opinion, it does appear to portray the evacuation as unsatisfactory for an old woman, and many may believe that given the choice, they would have preferred a helicopter. Was there wilful negligence?, at the time of reporting it was not clear.
————————
“So what’s the point of trying to defend your actions?”
You’ve lost me on that, what actions, I did not go the march, so no action there!
Report abuse
As I stated this is about having your professional capeability questionned by people who write sensationalised aritcles, not waiting for the facts but writing a story to make it sound like the medical professional was in the wrong. In your own words they reported on the story when the story itself wasn’t clear, isn’t that bad journalism?
The last statement was a statement to say what is the point of the doctor trying to defend his actions when he has already been trialled and found guilty by the SNL? They’ve made their mind up, the following editions pick apart his response, so really…what’s the point?
I’m not sure why you keep banging on about ‘personal attacks’. Am I missing something? Has the Doctor accused the SNL of personally attacking him? I would have thought being accused of negligence was enough…
At the end of the day I’m just a tourist. I live in Guernsey. It saddens me immensely that there isn’t more I can do to show my support .I do love Sark. The real Sark. Not the ‘polished-new-stones-made-to-look-old’ sark (Moinery).
Report abuse
Strange logic you employ.
David Berry (13/2) states The BBC thought there was a personal attack on the Doctor by SNL as well.
You replied to my “Specifically which part of SNL 123/124 is there a personal attack, can anyone please quote from the evidence.”
In your first response you state:-
What is the definition of a ‘personal attack’? surely having your professional capability questioned by a local news rag with a political agenda, written by self proclaimed journalists is the very definition of ‘Trial by Media’.
You then listed what one can only assume was you attempt of proving there was a personal attack on the doctor. If not, why post it as a reply to my post, even David Berry in post 38 believed it was a response to my questions.
Now you state:
I’m not sure why you keep banging on about ‘personal attacks’. Am I missing something? Has the Doctor accused the SNL of personally attacking him? I would have thought being accused of negligence was enough…
I read that as though you now accept there was no personal attack, which is what I was saying, although you finish off with an incorrect statement, because within SNL’s 123/124 neither accuse the doctor of wilful negligence, there is a question posed of whether it was wilful negligence.
It appears that misunderstanding what is written, is a common factor for many of those who attack the SNL, even government officials get it (quite worryingly) wrong, as Mrs Baker explains in her Public Apology Statement, “we are grateful for your explanation of the distinction between a factual error, expression of opinion and a lie”.
Lastly, when you respond directly to any post and use the word “your”, as you did in:
“So what’s the point of trying to defend your actions?”
It is generally accepted as a question to the person that you reply to, and has a completely different meaning to what you now say you meant:
“So what’s the point of the doctor trying to defend his actions?”
Report abuse
“Strange logic you employ.”
Blow me!! So D-A is in fact Lord Yoda?
And we all thought Yoda was a good guy – but now his seems to be batting for the Dark Side. Is Brecqhou in fact a well disguised Death Star? Is Kevin Delaney really Luke Skywalker’s long lost other sister?
Where will this all end?
Report abuse
Devil’s_advocate
I’m not a lawyer, I’ve never proclaimed to be one.
I understand your confusion over the last sentence of my initial response, however (as these things sometimes do happen) when you happen to be writing away you sometimes can’t imagine how the other person would read what you’ve written (maybe I should send that little titbit to Kevin Delaney) in any case I thought I had cleared the matter up in my subsequent reply.
Ok. I’ll try and put my point across in the simplest way I can.
I think our interpretations of a ‘personal attack’ differ.
I took the liberty of trying to find a definitive interpretation :
“..An ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it…”
“…Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one’s opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument…”
Therefore the following statement on issue 132 on the 14th February as a response to the Doctors…er…response (how many responses do we need?!) would be just that
…Confidentiality which surely would have been waived if it assisted the Doctor…”
I also find the following quite amusing…
…The idea that the Marine Ambulance or Lifeboat always have to be scrambled when the Doctor is off the Island even for one hour is, with respect, absurd…”
Claire Wiseman makes the mistake that by writing ‘with respect’ that it negates all subsequent slanders. It doesn’t. That’s like saying ‘I’m not raciest but..’ followed by an extremely raciest comment.
Whether or not the articles are a ‘personal attack’ against the Doctor one thing can be agreed upon. His professional conduct and capabilities were put under scrutiny by people not qualified to do so. They then publicised their unfounded opinions rather than asking the Doctor directly for an interview to perhaps answer the questions they had. This was all very aggressive. It is no wonder that the Doctor felt he was being harassed and not able to put forward his reasoning’s for why he took the decision he did. If the SNL genuinely felt there was medical negligence why didn’t they report the Doctor to be investigated? Why did they have to draw their own conclusions, make up assumptions and write a poorly researched article from the safe haven behind closed doors. This is the very definition of bullying. We wouldn’t stand for this in a playground why do we stand for this as adults?
All the editions of the SNL are written with a heavy political agenda, I don’t think that can be denied. But trying to sound like they are uncovering the truth for the people is laughable. There is no case to answer to here. They have done what they have set out to do and have driven a Doctor from the island. Well done them. Now SEM can recruit their own Doctor and hold it over the heads of the Sarkees.
Report abuse
Am I right in thinking a (female) lawyer/legal person of sorts recently joined the lovely K.D.’s ‘team’?
– if so, the identity of the appropriately named ‘devil’s advocate’ (an accurate, but Freudian slip) who insists on posting overly verbose, coma inducing lengthy posts defending him and his actions is pretty obvious.
It’s amazing how low some people will stoop for a large enough wage.
I would simply love to see the people of Sark take their protest a step or so further, exercise their right to refuse to read the poisonous garbage that is SNL by getting it registered with the GPO as’ junk – do not deliver to my address’ island-wide, and simply refrain from looking at the electronic version online as well.
As is the case with these comment boards, trolls can only operate by being fed, so stop feeding the SNL troll, and even if the insidious new pretenders to the supposedly feudal throne that they protest so much about are still in evidence, you will, at least, be derive some pleasure from knowing you are denying the SNL’s editor of his.
Report abuse
@dont_P
“coma inducing”
Absolutely! DA could save the PEH a fortune in anaesthetic costs. And just imagine if he/she read them as downloadable podcasts? No more mogadon would ever be required!
So have you made you preference for medevac know to Kevin? It sounds like you may need it.
(Would it not be wonderful if we could arrange a truce, and for all those here to reveal their true identities..? I bet there would be a few laughs… eh, Kev?)
Report abuse
dont_P – “defending him and his actions is pretty obvious”
So obvious? please give me an example of where I have “defended him!”
Report abuse
D_A. If my leg gets any wetter, I may have to call in a lawyer….
if he’s as tenacious and tricky as you are, he’ll undoubtedly be able to prove that you are the culprit, even if you weren’t actually there at there time.
Report abuse
As I knew, you can’t give me an example, because I didn’t and that is a problem where someone reads an article but but reads into it something which is nether inferred or intended.
Report abuse
it’s soaked right through to my socks now….
that’s it, I’m getting legal aid.
Report abuse
You may feel the need to waffle on ad infinitum, DA, but I don’t get paid by the hour, and don’t feel the want or need to do your bidding, thus earning you another hour or so’s worth of BS arguing the point you know only too well that I – and others – are making.
Your agenda and identity does not require the whiles of Sherlock Holmes to work out, another ‘clue’ being that you suddenly entered the ongoing SNL debate at approximately the same time as a new legal person was appointed to assist the pretenders to the feudal throne, who are also in the habit of wetting on people’s trousers whilst insisting it’s raining in their ‘we’re only here to help’ fashion.
The underestimation of the CI’s local populace generally, employed by so many who come here considering themselves and their intellect so infinitely superior, never ceases to amaze me, and in many cases, eventually (patience being one of we ‘local’s many virtues), it is their undoing.
Now, what is it they call 500 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?
Oh yes, that’s right, a DAMNED good start.
Cheri :)
Report abuse
@ devils_advocate The post by “SARK TOURIST” gives examples. Its a reply to post 34.
Report abuse