A Covert Defamation Complaint

If you have no interest in the minutiae arising from legal arguments about allegations of defamation please tick the box.
A button will then be displayed to give access to the requested page telling you about Catherine's premeditated and deliberate killing by NHS medical staff.

Please press the button to go directly to the page which tells you about the day Catherine died.

The rest of this page, mounted here to give Barking Havering and Redbridge NHS Trust a platform on which to have their concerns about defamation aired properly should, as it develops over time allow readers an insight and the opportunity to decide for themselves.

Freedom of Speech is a valuable freedom. Please do not succumb to constraints before considering all alternatives. There is probably one out there that will be useful to you if attempts are made to gag you with inappropriate threats that rely heavily on lax interpretations of the law concerning defamation. A widespread view of current interpretations of our libel laws can be seen here:

The following document sums the result of the latest three days of increasingly inflammatory correspondence with a BHR NHS Trust legal services manager who stooped as far as using old pre tested triggers with words like 'our nurse' and 'respected member of the medical profession' to describe people who deliberately kill. In so doing, she devalues words like 'nurse' and phrases like 'respected member of the medical profession'.
 

I strongly suspect that this BHR Legal Services Manager could never, in a lifetime of training, ever achieve the true status of nurse or be able to competently do the job. She certainly knows very little about her own useless job or what is prominently displayed on the NHS Litigation Authority website. Importantly, she knows nothing of the legal rights of patients and displays a gross willingness to protect employees, no matter what  illegal or wrong things they have done.

Is this what we really pay a health service for? Deliberately kill people and then spend our money defending themselves by lying, falsifying records and by using people who know nothing much at all about legal matters to go behind our backs to complain to internet service providers and to attempt to get them to levy costs? Then if that does not work, threaten us by stating that they will obtain a covert legal injunction? Yes, a covert injunction no less. I think not. Nor would anyone sane with a shred of integrity. Even more disturbing is the fact that this person was completely sure that the injunction would be granted despite a great deal of strongly supporting evidence underscoring the facts. Something is very wrong here. Very wrong indeed. I shall mount the full correspondence from her on this website in due couse. You can then judge for yourselves on how fact free it is and how threatening and deliberately inflammatory it is. Worryingly, it also displays a certainity that a Judge would grant an injunction without being presented with any evidence at all. This, in itself, is remarkable.              

Our. Respected.

Adopted by whom and respected by what section of the population? Unfortunately this is a wholly cynical and often used ploy designed to inflame complainants to the point of putting their complaint in jeopardy. Be aware that this is often attempted when you are most vulnerable. 

Sometimes unfortunate side effects of communication are unavoidable. I personally became gradually aware that a phrase like 'my wife was killed' induced unintended responses in some readers. A surprisingly frequent one was "I wish somebody would kill my husband/wife".

However, a department dedicated to professionally corresponding with complainants should if at all competent, be able to identify and avoid triggers like 'our nurse' and 'respected member of the medical profession' when they are fully aware that the reader has no such respect for the person they are complaining about.

One thing I know. A complainant's every word is subjected to unfriendly scrutiny eventually. Reacting to deliberately introduced triggers may be best avoided in those darkest moments of isolation.

The most valued feature of any communication between people, empathy, flies out of the window. Assuming it was ever there in the first place.

What passes for useful information sharing between complainants and NHS Trusts is, to paraphrase Iain M. Banks   the bureaucratic phatic of people protecting their position. Looking for praise, projecting criticism, setting up positions of non-responsibility for imminent and past failures that were, and are entirely predictable but are now presented as completely unavoidable.  The inter-department communications between complaints departments are preoccupied with telling each other what everyone knew anyway. Far more occupied with presenting a united front hedged around by a pack of transparent lies than passing true information, NHS complaints departments in general achieve nothing more than further distess to vulnerable people.

Phatic. But worse. An exercise in discovering how much the complainant knows and how big the lies are that can be deployed to fog the issues. The taxpayer, as always, shoulders the finacial burden of keeping parasites employed to do nothing useful.

24 Aug 2010

This page was added because the ISP hosting this website received a complaint alleging defamation. It was flagged to the webmaster by email at 16:49 on 23 August 2010. It was read by the webmaster at 06:50 on 24 August 2010.

The content of the page being complained about, all factual and therefore not defamatory, had been flagged to Barking, Redbridge and Havering NHS Trust as a courtesy by email, inviting comment when this website was launched on 01 May 2010. No comments or complaints were made by the Trust.

Since then, thousands of hits have been recorded for this page. Be assured dear reader, the allegation of defamation remains just that - an unfounded allegation.

The turnaround time to edit and rehost this page was several minutes. This website is lucky enough to clearly enjoy a good and responsive service level. I shall keep you posted on further developments. Currently, as of Jan 24 2011,  I have agreed to 'anonymise' (obliterate names) in various documents and pages.

Webmaster.

Development one: 24 Aug 2010

The complaint was verified as originating from the office of the Chief Executive of Barking, Redbridge and Havering NHS Trust (BHR) and was made to the ISP, not directly to me. This Trust is very well aware of who I am and how I can be reached. It appears to have taken this Trust no less than 3 months to pick up a phone and make a covert complaint behind my back. Unless somebody called BHR and a BHR employee who knows nothing about Catherine's death unwittingly passed on a false complaint to the ISP without checking first. Which is a more likely scenario than was supposed at first.

For those of you who like the details of legal matters this is a definition of the law. Apparently, according to this definition I have no less than three defences available to me against Barking, Redbridge and Havering NHS Trust's unfounded allegation of defamation. Note the reversal of proof. Note also that libel and defamation may effectively be the same thing. There is no need to consider anything beyond the first defence in this case. The truth.

Defamation in English Law:

English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual (or individuals) in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them.

Allowable defences are justification i.e. the truth of the statement, fair comment (i.e. whether the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held), and privilege (i.e. whether the statements were made in Parliament or in court, or whether they were fair reports of allegations in the public interest).

An offer of amends is a barrier to litigation.

A defamatory statement is presumed to be false, unless the defendant can prove its truth.

Furthermore, to collect compensatory damages, a public official or public figure must prove actual malice (knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth).

A private individual must only prove negligence (not exercising due care) to collect compensatory damages.

In order to collect punitive damages, all individuals must prove actual malice.

I have sent the following self explanatory email to the ISP:

Dear Daniel,
Thank you for letting me know where the complaint originated. I shall revert to the Trust directly to see exactly what it is they are complaining about. They have all of my contact details so I find it a little more than odd that they should have raised a complaint with you as a service provider in the first place. My apologies for the extra cost that you have incurred.
If as you say, they contact you again or anything further is required - spend as little time on it as you can manage to do and notify me directly.
I shall in turn open a dialogue with them directly myself.
Regards
George Kuchanny

I intend to monitor the style of communication this Trust uses now. If they assume the attitude of poisonous arrogance in communication that was displayed by their Chief Executive all those years ago in 2000, when he attempted to deny that Catherine's personal possessions had been disposed of without permission (in law I presume this would be classified as theft now) I will be disappointed in the lack of improvement. I shall point out that this is unacceptable behaviour nowadays. Poisonous arrogance is pretty much out of style I understand and does not attract admiration for NHS Trusts in the Courts.

I may dig out the copy of his letter and reproduce it here for the reader to judge if I have nothing better to do. It was written to me at a time of most terrible bereavement and shock at what I had witnessed done to Catherine. Normally one would classify such a letter as disgustingly rude. In the state I was in it was truly appalling. Lets see if they can communicate in a more civilsed manner a decade later shall we? Or are they going to attempt to browbeat me with poisonous arrogance and senseless mumbo jumbo again?

I have three questions to put to the office of the Chief Executive. Notified by email on 25 AUG 2010.

1. Why are you blocking a perfectly reasonable request to see your recent communication to the NMC when you can obliterate any 'personal details' you think I do not have already? The confidentiality excuse has worn more than a little threadbare over the last decade. Being open and honest is the only way forward.
2. Why have you gone directly to an ISP with a covert complaint when you know exactly how to communicate with me?
3. What exactly are you complaining about, and why are you suddenly complaining now?

Development two: 26 Aug 2010

No further communication from Barking, Redbridge and Havering NHS Trust has been received despite the invitation to comment and answer the questions above. I shall rework the old page and remount it if that's ok by everyone, which it clearly is, as nobody has raised a concern.

The page complained about is in fact a single day taken from a document that covers all 11 days of Catherine's treatment in the ITU at Oldchurch hospital Romford. It is entirely factual in all details. This Trust is now alleging defamation or someone at the Chief Executive's office has relayed the complaint from elsewhere.

Truth is truth and no allegation of defamation will change that.

I shall wait a little longer for a response. Let us say the end of this week? I shall then put a button here to access the page that was covertly disputed. Please be aware, the page complained about is the truth. So anyone not directly involved in Catherine's death who thinks that they may be protecting the innocent by instigating an allegation of defamation is badly mistaken. Be aware. You are actually defaming me by attempting to imply that I am lying. You are not protecting the innocent.

Those who were directly involved in Catharine's death know that the page is the truth. There is no defamation. This website is not a blog written in poor taste, nor is it set on causing controversy by making wild allegations or issuing unfounded personal insults. It's purpose is at once more objective and more serious than that. It is to get the truth told and assist others in understanding how to consider their own avenues of enquiry.

Development three 24 Jan 2011

Barking Redbridge and Havering NHS Trust had the decency to contact me directly by telephone this time  instead of going behind my back directly to the service provider. I have unreservedly agreed to 'anonymise' the pages that give them concern because they have made a point of merit on Data Protection Act principles.

Because it is unreserved, this informal agreement also includes documents not marked 'Strictly Private and Confidential' in the public domain containing correspondence between me and organisations that they have no authority over. My sincere hope is that this Trust will treat Freedom of Information requests made to them in the same manner. Essentially this is the obliteration of names, leaving the body of information intact.  

Apparently they have a Legal Services Department who look after the rights of their employees. When I asked about the rights of patients there was no response. 

The following text has been removed from the page titled 'The Day Catherine Died' and moved here to allow Barking Redbridge and Havering NHS Trust to remember what they did after Catherine was killed. It was a lot more than they may wish to remember. It was a severe abuse of my rights that overspilled into criminality enacted in the name of, and on behalf of Barking, Redbridge and Havering NHS Trust. Funded by the public purse.

To reiterate, criminal activity funded by the public purse, if any reader has missed what has just been stated.

According to the The Perjury Act 1911 a maximum custodial sentence of seven years may be imposed for perjury. A perjurous ex partate injunction was served on me by the Trust. It was fulsomely long winded. When I approached a solicitor the response was ( I quote verbatim apart from changing her name for Data Protection Act compliance purposes)

Mrs X is the laughing stock of the legal community in Romford. She does not seem to understand that each para costs money  

The footnote copied from the page which was complained about follows this paragraph. Was it this footnote that was being complained about? Or was it the eyewitness account of that day in Oldcurch hospital's ITU?

Perhaps clarification can be made by the complainant who has alleged defamation. I shall be entirely attentive to any communication that they wish to make or anything that they would like to comment on because they think there is an error.

I need this site to be entirely truthful. The more verified facts the better. A prime aim of this site is to let people know facts. Facts that may help them when they need to know how to get their own concerns attended to properly.

Catherine was killed in a rush simply because she was recovering. No thought about relatives feelings. No thought about her son coming to see her from the other side of the country after being told she was going to be tested the next day. No sham at permission. No consultation. No person accompanying a relative to her bedside after she was dead as was asserted later by a liar. No thought about her right to life. The nurse had only one objective in mind.

Get me away from Catherine and kill her before I noticed that she was alive.

After much research and careful examination I dscovered that the syringe being injected into Catherine on the day she died contained Fentanyl. Not Noradrenaline. She had been asphyxiated to death when the 'positive pressure' ventilator was turned off, doubtlessly with the tube still in place. She took 15 minutes to die while attempting to breathe. It is all in the altered notes. All this, done without compunction and lied about afterward. Lie upon lie ever further from the truth.

No right to dispose of her things. A property form with a forged signature passed off as mine to the Chief Executive. Medical notes rewritten post mortem by several liars who took an appalling 60 days to get their fanciful excuses rewritten into the notes. This was for notes that covered 10 ¹/₂ days. So why were her things disposed of? The answer. A pretence. To make other nurses assume that I did not care about my wife. Lie after lie. There was no end to them. 

It took six times longer to fiddle the medical notes than it took to write them in the first place. The notes started with an entry which was written post mortem. The Trust could easily have checked if this doctor was actually on duty at the time of Catherine's admission. Which I doubt. The entry was a pack of lies. There were no other entries made by this individual who, for all I know, may simply not have been on duty in the entire 10 ¹/₂ days.

Paul has never been the same since arriving at the hospital only to discover that his mum had been killed the day before.

I have been abused well beyond the point of illegal hounding by the Trust after suffering the worst trauma at the hands of the people who transparently killed Catherine. The nurse had failed in her prime objective of hiding the fact that Catherine was alive. But she still went on to kill her. An ex partate injunction packed with lies was served on me by their complaints manager. The notion she clearly had of her job was that it was her job to protect people who have no integrity and no sense of right and wrong. At all costs, including perjury. The medical staff lied to her and everyone else higher in the hierarchy but she did not investigate at all.

She began to actively cover for them even though it must have been abundantly clear that something was very wrong. The complaints manager's perception of her job was very far from properly reviewing a complaint.

This complaints manger took unmistakable delight in telling me a carefully prepared meeting was cancelled after I got my brother and an independent witness to attend with me. He was in the flat in Upminster at the time and heard her recorded message. He was appalled to hear the delight in her voice.

It was no mean feat putting the paperwork together after being forced to wait way beyond sensible times in the poor state I had been pushed into. The documentation provided by the Trust was disjoint. ITU sheets were copied in almost illegible manner and jumbled up with bits missing. CT scans were sent to the wrong address. It took Whitehall intervention to overrule her and reinstate the meeting. Even this was not enough for her to stop. She phoned my GP and attempted to get her to put me on inappropriate medication. My GP was truly shocked by the audacity.

A complaints manager who was out of control and who appears to have been so for some time.

This is what was done by Barking, Redbridge and Havering NHS Trust, or more precisely, by an employee acting on their behalf, while I was attempting to survive the worst days of my life.