Monday, September 19, 2016


"Subcontinental" not such a bad word after all

The Indian subcontinent was being referred to.  There is a very high rate of complaints in Britain about Indian and Pakistani doctors, so regarding them as a bad lot is defensible

A top NHS surgeon branded a racist after he referred to a group of Asian colleagues as 'sub-continent elements' has won a three-year fight to continue practising medicine

Clinical director Peter Hale, 58, had made his candid comments after a stormy staff meeting about rotas in which three Pakistani junior doctors and one Indian medic claimed they he was treating them 'like slaves.'

When the four men left a room, Mr Hale was said to have offered to place a £50 bet that one would agree to work a particular shift only to then 'fly to Nigeria and that there would be a problem with the plane coming back.'

But unbeknown to Mr Hale, his unguarded remarks were being taped after a mobile phone which had been recording the meeting was left switched on.

The device - which belonged to one of the Asian doctors - caught Mr Hale making further comments including: 'Some of these sub-continent elements; what you end up with is long term resentments and grievances and all sorts of stuff. They are their own worst enemies.

'They're not clear thinkers. They're an unbelievable group of people. Vile actually.'

When the tape recording came to light, Mr Hale was reported to bosses at Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals Trust and he was later sacked for gross misconduct from Royal Sussex County Hospital.

Investigators claimed the surgeon's remarks could be considered racially discriminatory as he had referred to an Australian colleague as a man who 'never lets you down and will go a mile to make sure he helps.'

The four Asian doctors Khawaja Zia, Ved Prakash, Vivek Kaul and Christi Swaminathan subsequently sued the NHS trust for racial discrimination claiming they had been under-paid and under-promoted due to their race and treated as 'slave labour.'

They also claimed they had taken offence to Mr Hale using the phrase 'three-line whip' to ask them to come to a meeting but lost their case.

At the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service in Manchester Mr Hale from Hassocks, West Sussex, an expert in gastrointestinal conditions, faced being banned from practising medicine but a disciplinary panel said the surgeon was not racially prejudiced and no warning was needed.

The tribunal heard members of the group of Asian doctors had planned to covertly record the meeting.

Several medical colleagues had spoken up for Mr Hale describing him as 'transparent, robust, clear-sighted, trustworthy and professional' and claiming 'bad behaviour ' of several junior doctors was well known amongst staff in the hospital.

Panel chairman Mr Sean Ell told Mr Hale: 'Your comments followed a heated and antagonistic meeting at which the complainants made a number of unprofessional and personal comments which included accusations of racism and slavery.

'Whatever their grievances may have been, they were not appropriate comments to have made at that meeting. Their conduct at the meeting followed similar behaviour towards you and other staff members over a period of time.

'The Tribunal was satisfied that against that background your comments were not motivated by racial prejudice, but rather in response to the conduct of the complainants both during and prior to the meeting. Although your comments were derogatory and dismissive, the Tribunal is satisfied that they were not racially motivated.'

SOURCE

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

More Political Correctness run amok !

Bird of Paradise said...

PC nonsnese getting out of hand and the usial pinheads who push this so the little snowflakes wont get the delicate little feeling hurt Dumber then a sack of rocks these little snowflakes

Anonymous said...

I can't believe a committee in the UK actually made such a reasonable decision. Totally opposite to most claims of racism outcomes. Perhaps they are starting to see the inherent racism of immigrants who perceive they are entitled to more than they have earned.