It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
White took his case against the GMC to the High Court on the basis of his freedom of expression “to engage in medical, scientific and political debate and discussion,” White’s barrister, Francis Hoar, told a hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice.
Hoar added that White’s opinions were “supported by large bodies of scientific and medical opinion” and had been “statements of fact and opinions about pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions in response to the pandemic.”
GMC’s Alexis Hearnden claimed that White’s views were not only misinformation, but posed a “risk” to the public because they didn’t align with official pronouncements.
However, the court ruled in favor of White, asserting that the tribunal which banned him from speaking had violated the 1998 Human Rights Act.
The ruling concluded that the tribunal’s decision was “an error of law and a clear misdirection,” meaning the decision was “clearly wrong and cannot stand.”
e
originally posted by: angelchemuel
Dr Sam. Had his licence revoked too last year for speaking out against the you know what. One his court case and had his licence re-instated, Judges ruling.
Rainbows
Jane
originally posted by: angelchemuel
Dr Sam. Had his licence revoked too last year for speaking out against the you know what. One his court case and had his licence re-instated, Judges ruling.
Rainbows
Jane
originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: angelchemuel
Dr Sam. Had his licence revoked too last year for speaking out against the you know what. One his court case and had his licence re-instated, Judges ruling.
Rainbows
Jane
He didn't have his licence revoked.
The General Medical Council (GMC) placed the interim conditions on Dr White's registration following a tribunal in August.
originally posted by: Justoneman
originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: angelchemuel
Dr Sam. Had his licence revoked too last year for speaking out against the you know what. One his court case and had his licence re-instated, Judges ruling.
Rainbows
Jane
He didn't have his licence revoked.
Well this says they forced his resignation however.
It appears they took his license by this BBC article
The General Medical Council (GMC) placed the interim conditions on Dr White's registration following a tribunal in August.
He had been a partner at a Hampshire practice but quit in February.
In the seven-minute video posted on Twitter and Instagram, Dr White, who is now a locum GP, said he had been unable to continue in his role at The Denmead Practice because he could no longer "stomach or tolerate" those "lies", London's High Court heard.
edit on 7-12-2021 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)
originally posted by: Justoneman
Well this says they forced his resignation however.
It appears they took his license by this BBC article
He chose to resign due to his political beliefs since he was still working as a GP they clearly didn't revoke his licence.
originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: ScepticScot
He chose to resign due to his political beliefs since he was still working as a GP they clearly didn't revoke his licence.
It had nothing to do with his political beliefs, this is about proper medical practice. It says in your own quote “no longer stomach or tolerate those lies” now what lies do you think he is referring to exactly?
There was also another British doctor of Pakistani heritage that spoke out and was suspended for 6 months. People who work in care and for the NHS are being forced to take the jabs or lose their jobs, but you won’t be fired until April because they will be needed for the busy winter period!!
Can’t you see this is tyranny? Can’t you say something positive about a victory for human rights? It’s one thing to be a skeptic and another to be a total...
Proper medical practise would be to follow medical advice and scientific research. The opposite of what he did.
Proper medical practise would be to follow medical advice and scientific research. The opposite of what he did.
Hoar added that White’s opinions were “supported by large bodies of scientific and medical opinion” and had been “statements of fact and opinions about pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions in response to the pandemic.”
because they didn’t align with official pronouncements.
originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: ScepticScot
Proper medical practise would be to follow medical advice and scientific research. The opposite of what he did.
Are you living in your own reality bubble?
Hoar added that White’s opinions were “supported by large bodies of scientific and medical opinion” and had been “statements of fact and opinions about pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions in response to the pandemic.”
Now
because they didn’t align with official pronouncements.
Does that make statements of fact supported by large bodies of scientific and medical opinion wrong somehow? Are official pronouncements like the word of the almighty or something? Well thank god the court didn’t think so.
While I’m at how is it both secretary’s of health since the pandemic, egg head and lover boy, have no background in health or medicine? Why do people listen to the likes of Bill Gates whose only real world experience with virus’s and bugs are mostly in his own software?
Pull the other one.
originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Smigg
How can a government "ban" someone from using social media?
UK ministers rarely have qualifications specific to their department.