Search results matching tags 'Caswell Clinic' and 'Duty of Care'

Dr Tegwyn Williams, Prof Roger Wood and South Wales NHS sued for a Million Pound + Fraud

Maurice — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 14:05:00 GMT

Dear Sir Norman Scarth, Rear Admiral Rtd.,

Further to your kind invitation to attend Leeds County Court on Magna Carta Day, 15th June, [NOT BEFORE NOON], with Battle Bus, megaphones, etc [details at bottom of this post] please consider 10,000 pamphlets, floating downwards, on the day, just for starters.

More than a year has gone by since I was incarcerated in prison due to a rogue psychiatrist falsifying medical records just to help a police woman in a spot of bother. "trouble at mill", as my Barry Veterinary hospital secretary used to say, back in the 90s.

Barbara Wilding, as Chief Constable and controller of millions of charity cash, enquiry will find, had a 'cosy relationship' with Tegwyn, a NHS Clinical Director needing handouts, fast and plentiful.

Whilst I was locked up in the shear hell of Casswell Clinic, I noticed other patients being quietly recommended release, by Williams, alone, to one of his own private psychiatric units, in Cardiff and elsewhere, cleverly in partnership with other key NHS people controlling the flow of UK tax payers' money to the private medical sector.I have deliberately kept quiet, until now, Norman, on this aspect of the 2008 conspiracy hatched, machine gun arrest / Barbara as Defendant / Williams to falsify records, just to see what wicked Tegwyn Williams / South Wales Police and HM Partnership and their cabal might do next, now that I am temporarily at large and still breathing.

An outside authority should easily follow the audit trail of purloined tax payers' cash, in South Wales, despite having their local courts sewn up 'as tight as a mackerels', as our old gardener, Ernie Gratton, would say.

Is there a link beween the multiple Bridgend suicides of late and Caswell Clinic policy, many are asking?

Neither NHS nor Welsh Assembly have any intention in helping me get my medical records clarified or corrected. So, once again, I have to face the utter stench of a Welsh law court for a few more years. .A Cardiff Court action against Williams came to an interesting conclusion, today, when the Cardiff judge refused my application for clarification, correction or release of my medical records.....

Those proceedings now concluded, but with Williams still not yet behind bars, it has set the stage, beautifully for the start of both civil and criminal proceedings. Norman, guess where? In Cardiff!

IN THE CARDIFF COUNTY COURT Claim No

MAURICE JOHN KIRK Claimant

Dr Tegwyn Williams 1st Defendant

Professor Roger Wood 2^nd Defendant

Paul Williams Chief Executive NHS Wales 3^rd Defendant

The Secretary of State to the Ministry of Justice 4^th Defendant

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

1. The 1^st Defendant was at all material times the Clinical Director of the South Wales Constabulary's Forensic Unit, Caswell Clinic, Bridgend and the staff of the medium secure psychiatric hospital, hereinafter referred to, were at all material times acting under the direction and control of the Defendant in the performance or purported performance of their functions.

2. The 2^nd Defendant was at all material times a psychology professor at Swansea University, South Wales.

3. The 3^rd Defendant was the regional director responsible for the conduct of the South Wales NHS staff and safety of the general public when in its care.

4. On or before 1^st June 2009,following meetings at South Wales Police HQ, by senior police officers, the 1st Defendant was made aware that ‘Operation Orchid' had been conceived following the attempts by the Claimant to sue the South Wales Police relating to over one hundred incidents and was claiming malicious intent, bullying and false imprisonment by them.

5. His newest complaint, that being the Chief Constable's February 2009 falsely signed sworn affidavit, relating to years of covert police surveillance of the Claimant, led to meetings of the Independent Advisory Group (IAG) and Multi Agency Public Protection arrangements (MAPPA) in order prevent disclosure of the truth.

6. Repeatedly, police refused to properly investigate crime committed against his property and person. Well over one hundred allegations of criminal conduct were laid, as a counter measure, only to be withdrawn by the HM Crown Prosecution Service or ignominiously dismissed in the criminal courts despite where HM Partnership had some special relationships with each other in the Principality.

7. The 1^stand 3^rd Defendant knew that police ‘Operation Orchid' was devised on spurious medical grounds with a real risk of damaging the Claimant by either being a party to causing his 10 year old daughter being taken into care, allegedly for her own safety, by South Wales Social Services.

8. The 1^st Defendant, on 8^th June 2009, caused members of his staff to attend Barry police station for a MAPPA meeting that led to his knowledge that the Claimant was to be arrested, remanded in custody and should the Claimant ‘approach the Chief Constable of South Wales', on the pretext of ‘mutual exchange of witness statements', in a civil action, ‘he was likely to be shot' by an armed police unit.

9. At no time, to this day, did any of the four Defendants inform the Claimant of the risk to his life, from the South Wales Police nor the existence and possible consequences of ‘Operation Orchid' causing damage to both the Claimant and his family.

10. In early and mid June 2009 the Claimant attended various South Wales police stations, in Cardiff, Cowbridge and Barry, lodging further complaints of being refused police investigations concerning crimes committed against him.

11. On 18^th June 2009, in frustration, the Claimant visited and complained at the Chief Constable's office in Bridgend HQ where he was soon surrounded by a heavily armed police sporting flak jackets and tin hats with an array of gas cylinders clipped on their belts.

12. The Chief constable refused ‘exchange of witness statements', despite a court dead line by the following day, and ordered the Claimant be escorted off the premises but not before a thorough search of his car, for any fire arms or explosives and bringing in a road patrol officer off the Motorway who failed to find any defect in the Claimant's old car.

13. The Claimant put the finishing touches to his 64 page witness statement, for court later, having just ‘gone public', on YouTube and on his own web site, http://www.kirkflyingvet.com/, of his knowing, all the time, of the 18 years of expensive covert police surveillance on both his veterinary hospital and home.

14. On 21^st June 2009 the 1^st Defendant was notified of ‘Operation Chalice', arranged by the Chief Constable, for a formidable armed police unit amassed to take the Claimant into custody.

15. The operation was, however, aborted despite the Claimant being in full view of the twenty odd surveillance team, crowded in the road and crouched behind the hedges with police helicopter hovering overhead.

16. On the 22^nd June 2009 the Claimant was arrested on fire arms charges, fabricated by the Chief Constable but examined by a police psychiatrist who found no relevant medical abnormality with her patient to require detention or treatment.

17. To the contrary, the 1^st Defendant wrote his 3^rd August 2009 psychiatric report , without even examining the Claimant, recommending the Claimant serve a further prison sentence, whilst unconvicted but in his experimental unit, Caswell Clinic, thereby further delaying the machine gun allegations coming to trial

18. The 1^st Defendant wrongly stated his patient suffered a ‘paranoid delusional disorder', requiring further detention in custody, due to ‘false fixed beliefs' in that the Claimant believed he was being persecuted by the South Wales Police

19. On 7^th August 2009, upon giving a Cardiff Crown Court judge false information, the 1^st Defendant recommended and obtained a Section 35 under the 1983 Mental Health Act.

20. The 1^st Defendant knew or should have known that an appropriately qualified police doctor, HM Prison Cardiff psychiatrists and his own doctors, at Caswell Clinic had already very recently physically examined the Claimant and had found no mental health abnormality requiring further incarceration or treatment

21. The 1^stDefendant, on or about 28^th August 2009, maliciously and/or negligently, caused the Claimant to undergo an unnecessary but intrusive procedure of a SPEC scan requiring the infusion of radioactive isotopes into the Claimant's brain.

22. The 1st Defendant informed the South Wales Police, HM Crown Prosecution Service, Uncle Tom Cobley and all that Princess of Wales Hospital brain scans revealed ‘significant brain damage' and likely to be irreversible..

23. The 1^st Defendant had no appropriate medical qualifications to come to that conclusion especially with the prior knowledge that an expert in the field of brain scans had already written a report stating there was no sign of relevant abnormality or suggestion of any space invading lesion in the Claimant's brain.

24. Following significant but immediate alarming sides effects on the ‘patient' the 1^st Defendant repeatedly refused the right for the Claimant to be examined, either privately funded or funded by the 3^rd Defendant, by his own general practitioner of some seventeen years standing or independent source from outside South Wales.

25. The Claimant has suffered these apparent medical complications ever since.

26. The 1st Defendant caused the 2^ndDefendant to be also enticed into the conspiracy, to pervert the course of justice, hatched originally by senior police officers of South Wales in the hope of a few chances in having the chronic litigant ‘lawfully' shot.

27. Professor Wood, the 2^nd Defendant, interviewed the Claimant under the pretence he was a doctor of medicine and when he had no appropriate qualifications to write such content in his original report to Dr Ruth Bagshaw of Caswell Clinic.

28. The 2nd Defendant's report, read by the Claimant on or around 13^th October 2009, stated apart from other untruths, the following:

a. He was an expert in the field of interpreting brain scans and the very purpose of his being called in by the 1^st Defendant. He agreed with the doctor's findings, that of irreversible ‘significant brain damage'.

b. Damage was attributed to the effects of excessive alcohol consumption having been an old drinking partner of the late actor, Oliver Reed Esq.

c. Damage was attributed to the effects of ‘previous flying accidents' and the Claimant's recently ditching into the Caribbean in his WW2 light aircraft during an attempted circum navigation of the world.

d. Damage confirmed by the 2^nd Defendant's belief that the Claimant had flown his aircraft from West Wales to Australia ‘without a map'.

29. 1^st Defendant caused further psychiatric reports to be written containing the following:

Maurice Kirk presents with symptoms entirely consistent with a mental illness namely

paranoid delusional disorder (fixed false beliefs un ameanable to reason)

Maurice Kirk has evidence of significant brain damage to an area of his brain specifically

related to self-awareness, judgement, decision making, self regulation of behaviour and

control of emotions

30. More 1^st Defendant psychiatric reports caused the Claimant to be further detained in custody, in fear of his life throughout, for the maximum period allowed, under the 1983 law, that of twelve weeks.

31. The 1^st Defendant, despite repeated objections by the Claimant each time a new report was written, refused to correct his forensic history of his patient. It included, along with other false information to countless bail judges, that the Claimant, in 1982, had been convicted of ‘Actual Bodily Harm'

32. Following the Claimant's applications under the Freedom of Information and Data Protection Acts, the 3^rd Defendant, the NHS, refused to disclose the full relevant medical records caused by the Claimant's detention in Caswell Clinic and in particular including any records of 2^nd Defendant or from those of the doctor in his presence at time of his insulting interview.

33. The 1^st Defendant then recommended, under a Section 41 or similar, to numerous judges that the Claimant be retained in a psychiatric hospital. He particularly asked his patient be transferred to Ashworth high security psychiatric prison, following consultation with the South Wales Police and MAPPA recommending he be imprisoned IPP, imprisonment for public protection and without access to a jury, for an indeterminate period.

34. On the Claimant being returned to HM Prison Cardiff, in late October 2009, the 1^st Defendant was now in possession of other doctor's opinions, exceeding eighteen, that the Claimant revealed no relevant mental disorder to have caused his detention in his Caswell Clinic or for any treatment other than obtain independent legal representation, significantly unavailable in South Wales.

35. On 2nd December 2009, before the prospective trial judge in the rapidly approaching criminal proceedings, with the Claimant now indicted on ‘being in possession of a machine gun', ‘selling it' and ‘making financial gain', the 1st Defendant caused some of those present, without ever informing the Claimant, to this day, that the latter now had a brain tumour and was far too dangerous to be released on bail.

36. These further serious attempts to pervert the course of justice, by HM Crown Prosecution Service, the Chief Constable of South Wales Police and Dr Tegwyn Williams, were MAPPA's last ditch attempt to avoid a farcical and publicly watched criminal trial in the capital of Wales.

37. During the 2^nd December 2009 Crown Court hearing, in the absence of the unrepresented Claimant, locked up below, two English independent medical reports were considered by the court. The 1st, from HM Prison Ashworth, found no apparent mental disorder while the 2^nd, likewise, from a leading specialist in nuclear medicine, went so far as to castigating the 1^st Defendant for the unnecessary use of a SPEC scan when a non intrusive scan was all that was needed. The Claimant was again refused bail.

38. On or about 17^th December 2009 MAPPA, conducted in Caswell Clinic would you believe, removed the Claimant from their top level 5% category 3 list of most dangerous persons to the general public.

39. MAPPA or their agents, including 1^st, 3^rd and 4^th Defendant have failed to notify the Claimant, to this day, as to when and why was he on MAPPA register at all?

40. Why, now, he was no longer considered a public threat just days before a trail carrying possible convictions with a mandatory ten year prison sentence?

41. On 9^th February 2010 the Claimant was cleared of all charges, despite offering no defense BUT only due to the timely intervention of a jury made up of no lawyers and only one police ‘plant'.

42. Upon release from prison all four Defendants caused the Cowbridge Health Centre to refuse the Claimant as a continuing patient or disclose what confidential medical information of their patient it had revealed to FTAC, MAPPA or any of the Defendants before or during his custody period.

43. On 10^th February 2010, in Bridgend police station, a police psychiatrist and social workers examined the Claimant, yet again, in relation to ‘Operation

Orchid', still ongoing and again, found no relevant mental disorder to warrant the custody or medical treatment of the Claimant or being continued refusal to get access to his own daughter.

44 The 3^rd Defendant refused to disclose the full medical records, yet again, under a repeated Claimant Application, under the aforesaid Acts but included, by mistake a back dated falsified copy, again signed by the 2^nd Defendant, as if to be a copy of the original one seen by the Claimant handed to him, during his custody, by a Caswell Clinic doctor to read.

45. Only when the good doctor perceived the Claimant was likely to assault him, if need be, did he hand over the erroneous document to read

46. This report was clearly designed, as with the 1^st Defendant's psychiatric reports, to injure the Claimant's reputation and good name in the Vale of Glamorgan where he had, for many years, successfully practiced veterinary medicine.

47. Continued refusal by all four Defendants, to clarify and correct the Claimant's medical records, caused the Civil Aviation Authority to refuse his renewal for his pilot's licences until further examined by two of their most senior psychiatrists.

48. The Claimant had to travel to the CAA at Gatwick airport to find two doctors who stated, in so many words, that there was no indication of any medical condition that prevented the Claimant from holding a permit to be allowed to lawfully ‘break the bonds of earth' in UK airspace.

49. In June 2009 surgeons refused to operate on the Claimant, for an urgently needed total hip replacement, due to confusion caused by the all four Defendants, refusing to clarify whether or not the Claimant had cancer and ‘significant brain damage'.

50. The 3^rd Defendant refused to carry out another brain scan, via his new GP in Barry, causing serious delay with the Claimant having to travel to a foreign country for one. Only then did the Claimant obtain his much overdue operation, in Brittany once no abnormality was found in the Claimant's brain.

51. In or around July 2010 the 4^th Defendant refused to disclose Claimant's medical records relevant in these Particulars of Claim and denied knowledge, despite attending, of MAPPA monthly meetings during the 2009 Claimant's custody.

52. The 4^th Defendant would not even allow the Claimant to have his walking sticks returned suggesting malicious intent and part of the conspiracy.

53. All four Defendants caused unnecessary pain and suffering and mental anguish with the seriously debilitating effect of prolonged mind enhancing drugs such as morphine sulphate and Tremadol for nearly ten months.

54. The Claimant's medication and severe pain caused complete havoc and huge expense to the Claimant for numerous court proceedings, both civil and criminal, since June 2010 to around eight weeks after his 25^th March 2011 operation, a period for recuperation.

55. Parties in both civil and criminal courts, between June 2010 to date, have taken unfair advantage of the Claimant either ignoring countless monthly medical updates from specialist doctors from both sides of the English Channel.

56. One Cardiff law firm, defending a client for monies owed, actually quoted from the 1^st Defendant's false information contained in his psychiatric reports pleading the Claimant was, in effect, insane.

57. The 4^th Defendant also caused about a week's false imprisonment, in or about January 2008, when refusing to take from his prisoner, from within prison, his cash, his cheque, supply a credit card machine, to draw the cash or take from his wife, dutifully waiting at the prison gate, the outstanding amount in ‘readies'.

58. The Barry magistrates had promised the Claimant he could pay the outstanding CPS costs and court costs at any time during prison custody. The remaining amount from the original £11,000 owed being around £3,500, in lieu of imprisonment.

59. In summary, the Claimant has suffered from all four Defendants' misfeasance in public office and failure of duty of care to their patient and/or prisoner needing the latter to obtain protection from this abuse by temporary asylum in France, now subject to appeal and shortly to be heard, in open court, in Paris.

60. And in particular, the failure by the 1^st Defendant to correct and clarify the Claimant's medical records is gross professional misconduct which has caused defamation of the Claimant's name and good character, falsification of medical documents, false imprisonment, serious prolonged unnecessary bullying, pain and mental suffering to cause damages, special damages and/or exemplary damages with punitive damages, his conduct needing a long overdue criminal investigation.

61. And in particular, the 2nd Defendant's negligence has caused defamation of the Claimant's name and good character by falsified medical records causing false imprisonment and unnecessary pain and mental suffering requiring damages, exemplary and/special damages with punitive damages, his conduct also needing a long overdue criminal investigation.

62. And in particular, the 3^rd Defendant has caused defamation of the Claimant's name and good character, continues to withhold proper NHS services from the Claimant and relevant medical records that has led to unnecessary pain and mental suffering for the Claimant requiring this claim for damages, exemplary and/or special damages

63. And in particular, the 4^th Defendant has caused negligence, unnecessary pain and mental suffering and false imprisonment requiring damages, exemplary and/special damages.

64. And the Claimant claims costs.

Unless restrained by a competent court this rogue psychologist and rogue psychiatrist are likely to repeat their action again, there currently being little or no proper outside independent supervision of what really goes on in the Principality.

The Claimant retains his right for trial by jury and for a lawyer to read and amend this Claim.

Maurice J Kirk BVSc

2^nd June 2011

Puits aux Papillons
St Doha
22230 Merdrignac
Brittany

maurice@kirkflyingvet.com

Copy to: Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, Royal Courts of Justice

Cardiff Court of Appeal

Cardiff County Court

The French Immigration Authorities

My Judicial Review Application (Case CO/601/2011, The Queen (on the application of Norman Scarth), versus Leeds Magistrates' Court & others.) is to be heard in Leeds Combined Court Centre on Wednesday 15th June 2011, listed as 'NOT BEFORE 12 NOON'.

Please forgive my 'delusions of grandeur', but I do believe it warrants an attendance comparable to Birkenhead on 7th March.
Directions. The Courthouse (LS1 3BG) is just off Westgate, which is a continuation of The Headrow. It is the plain red brick building close by the Town Hall (a large imposing building with a massive domed tower). A free bus runs from Leeds Railway station. Get off at the Town Hall.
You know my belief that one way we may break the stranglehold which the Legal Mafia has on 'The Law' (& return something pertaining to 'Justice' to Britain) is to use Private Prosecutions. That they use all their dirty tricks to block us shows that they realise this. This Application for Judicial Review is my attempt to overcome their blocking tactics & break that stranglehold. As indicated below, 30 minutes SHOULD be enough for the judge to grant 'Permission to make the Application' (which is the convoluted way they do things), but the presence of numbers such as at Birkenhead on 7th March could ensure s/he does so. I understand the judge is likely to be HH Judge Mark Gosnell who lives at Newchurch in the Rossendale Valley in Lancashire. Surprisingly (to me) he is a guitarist in a rock band & is 'a stalwart of evening gigs at the Jolly Sailor, Spring Terrace, White Lion & other ritzy Valley venues with his band WASTED'. You younger people must tell me if this means he is more likely to obey his Judicial Oath? See below for my comments about a Circuit Judge being put in a position to overrule a High Court Judge.
Please ring me on 01274 541 213 if you wish. (see lower down for my contention that this matter being in the High Court at all is extortion of money from the public to go into the pockets of the legal professionals.)
Norman Scarth.

To Sergeant Mrs. Kate Roberts.
Dear Mrs. Roberts,
Yes please, in spite of the fact I would do better to complain to Father Christmas, Elvis Presley or Lord Lucan, I DO ask that you treat this as an OFFICIAL COMPLAINT (much good it will do me!) See my comments, inserted below in red, for easy recognition.
N.Scarth.
- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Subject: Complaint Against Police PSD 11/ - [Restricted]
> To: enscarth@hotmail.com
> From: Kate.Roberts@merseyside.police.uk
> Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 15:55:33 +0100
>
> Dear Mr. Scarth,
> A complaint against police has been recorded as you wrote to the Wirral
> Magistrates and raised your concerns regarding the way in which you were
> treated by both court staff and members of Merseyside Police. Your e-mail
> was forwarded to Merseyside Police. As a result of the allegations made in
> your e-mail, a complaint against police has been recorded.
>
> If you wish to withdraw this complaint, please let me know.
>
> However if you would like me to look into how you were dealt with by
> Merseyside Police officers on the date you state you were refused entry to
> Wirral Magistrates, I will do so.
'Refused entry'? That is a eupheism if ever there was one! I was NOT 'refused entry', but had barely got through the door before I was dragged off by ignorant thugs in uniform who acted just like the Gestapo in Nazi Germany, then stuck in a 2'6" square cage in the back of a police van in a police station yard for nearly three hours! SEE ATTACHMENT.
>
> It would help if I could discuss your complaint, in order that I may be
> able to obtain further details from you and in order to explain the
> complaints process. I am available on the telephone number below. If you
> do not get an answer I would be grateful if you would leave a contact
> number so I can return your call.
I am well aware of the 'Complaints Procedures' & know only too well that ALL such 'Procedures' are designed & used to send the victim running round in circles until his brain becomes addled, he becomes exhausted, or gives up in disgust! Why on earth do you want to speak on the telephone? Is it because you are anxious that there should be no record? I prefer that all communication between us to be by email, & thus ON record. (More in red lower down)
>
> I look forward to hearing from you.
> Regards,
> Kate Roberts
> Wirral Complaints Liaison Officer. 0151 777 2086

Alerting Welsh Ministers to the State of NHS Wales

Maurice — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 08:40:00 GMT

Carwyn Jones AM
First Minister
National Assembly of Wales

Edwina Hart AM
Minister for Health and Social Services
National Assembly of Wales

23 March 2011

Dear Mr Carwyn Jones AM and Mrs Edwina Hart AM,

Re: My Welsh Operation will now be in France. Is this the best future for Wales?

Important New Evidence that tests the State and Future of Wales NHS.

Mr David Sissling leaves as the local Chief Executive at ABMU LHB to be Chief of the Welsh NHS in May 2011. Edwina Hart as Welsh Health Minister and Mr Win Griffiths as Chairman ABMU LHB were being very helpful by seeking Mr David Sissling to address my concerns.

However, is it your place to intervene on the bigger issues and policy effect on the culture of the Welsh NHS, by whether the future NHS Chief Mr David Sissling's approach is appropriate, for the people of Wales to have confidence in the oversight by Welsh Ministers?

"Clear Evidence" of Brain Damage/Cancer - Available Facts about Dr Tegwyn Williams:

1) It appears, especially given his constant refusal to comment, that Dr Tegwyn Williams decided this brain damage existed without using any appropriately medically qualified doctor to allow or support his conclusion.

2) Yet it seems, when not using anyone medically qualified to progress such a view, that in 2009 Dr Tegwyn Williams wrote to the Crown Court to say that there is "clear evidence" that I have brain damage. Furthermore that the brain damage (that Dr Tegwyn Williams says exists) is supposed to also, according to Dr Tegwyn Williams, give an incurable condition leading to an unhelpful behaviour change, so to support that I may need to loose my liberty indefinitely, when I have never been convicted of any relevant or serious offence.

3) Furthermore, Crown Court transcripts of 2 December 2009 record a Crown Prosecution Counsel, Mr Twomlow, saying that Dr Tegwyn Williams wishes his concern about my having brain cancer to affect the decisions by the Crown Court.

"No" Brain Damage, "No" Cancer: by Two Sets of Evidence from both France & Wales.

4) In August 2009 properly qualified medical doctors at the Princess of Wales Hospital, Bridgend and later, in Southampton University, give an ‘all clear' brain scan result.

5) Yet, Dr Tegwyn Williams asserting brain damage or cancer means that my urgently needed hip operation cannot occur until surgeons are certain of what conditions may exist. Limited disclosure of records only added to confusion and delay as Dr Tegwyn Williams refuses to clarify about brain damage and cancer.

6) In February 2011 properly qualified medical doctors in France did a new brain scan and concluded also an ‘all clear' brain scan result.

Questions I ask be answered:

1. Do six Medical Opinions that contradict what Dr Tegwyn Williams says and his refusal to comment, adequately present a reasonable suspicion for the employer, Mr David Sissling, to act?

2. Why is there inaction to protect minimum standards, when ‘to be seen to act', the employer only needs to ask the General Medical Council to investigate to form their view?

3. Will this inaction justify more people to be forced to refuse to use a belligerent Welsh NHS?

4. Why is the future leader of the Wales NHS allowing and so supporting Dr Tegwyn Williams to behave as he does?

5. I am an Englishman granted Asylum in France in order to avoid Dr Tegwyn Williams' jurisdiction to use his opinion again to cause more harm or affect my liberty.

6. If I have to go to the additional strain of proving in the Welsh civil and criminal courts, by way of a private prosecution, that Dr Tegwyn Williams has acted dishonestly and maliciously, will my needing to so act spearhead that the Wales NHS uphold the basic minimum standards or will I inadvertently, as good as prove that Mr Sissling and therefore Welsh Ministers have abandoned important responsibilities and duties for which they take office and are paid?

7. My wife and daughter continue to live in the Vale of Glamorgan. Can I have your assurance the serious erosion of minimum standards in the Welsh NHS will be immediately addressed and rectified?

As you are both experienced and able politicians, I am sure you will welcome that I look forward to placing your reply alongside various comments on my website.

Yours

Copy to

Mr Win Griffiths, Chairman ABMU LHB
Mr David Sissling, Chief Executive, ABMU LHB
Media Wales
BBC Wales

First Petition to Parliament on Behalf of Victims of White Collar Crime

Maurice — Sat, 05 Feb 2011 11:22:00 GMT

The following Petition has been submitted to our new MP for the Vale of Glamorgan, Alun Cairns MP, following a very lively debate at our 25th January 2011 House of Commons meeting with both Members of the House of Lords and House of Commons in attendance, a committee room, I may say, STUFFED with Victims of the banks, HM and our law courts, solicitors and NHS (see photo gallery, other blogs and PDF downloads).

To the House of Commons

The petition of Maurice J Kirk BVSc, a citizen of the UK at 52, Tynewydd Road, Barry CF62 8AZ, declares that he has tried everything in his powers as a former veterinary surgeon to stand up to the harassment of South Wales Police who have delayed his civil action against them.

The citizen has suffered from harassment by South Wales Police that culminated in 7 months imprisonment, including 3 months in a psychiatric clinic, after getting him struck off the Register of Veterinary Surgeons.

One of the incidents in a series of interconnected legal actions was the machine gun case. The allegation was the possession and sale of a ‘gun' even though it was decommissioned and an ‘add on' to an historic aircraft. In the run up to the trial, however, South Wales Police mobilised Multi-Agency Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) hoping to shoot or section the citizen for life. MAPPA categorisation was used for imprisonment which included 3 months in a psychiatric clinic. A leaked MAPPA document, published on his website www.kirkflyingvet.com, shows that the Police had a firearms response.

The harassment included the falsification of medical records claiming that he has serious brain damage, possibly brain cancer, to get him sectioned. This prevented his surgical team from carrying out a hip replacement scheduled for June 2010.

While the citizen won the machine gun case in court, he did not get any costs or compensation for malicious prosecution, false imprisonments and generally the deprivation of his human and professional rights as a veterinary surgeon.

The petitioner therefore requests that the Government steps in as Compensator of Last Resort

Dear Mr Cairns,

The 25th January meeting at the House of Commons was a resounding success with many Members from both Houses, with 'like minds', all in one room! The ever widening divide between the basic rules of justice and the conduct of the South Wales Police, our law courts, Crown Prosecution Service and now, HM Court Service, is really most serious because it is clear there is no accountability for their joint actions.,.

South Wales National Health Service and our Health Minister refuse to hand over my medical records in their current control and with CPS, police, Caswell Clinic, HM Prison, Cardiff, Dr Tegwyn Williams and Professor Roger Wood are all refusing to clarify, with my surgeons, my medical history when I was in prison custody meaning still further delay in my much needed hip operation.

When can I next see you, please, either in London or Barry? I have currently obtained asylum in France following the repeated attempts by the South Walers Police to either have me shot or jailed for life so any meeting must be before my witnesses and suitably recorded.

Yours sincerely, .

Maurice J Kirk BVSc