Monday

Mark Wightman, Leicester Hospital's Director of Communications, remains committed to the McCanns fraudulent fund


My first letter of complaint to University Hospitals Leicester


My second letter of complaint:

Dear Mr Wightman

Thank you for your unsatisfactory reply which you have noted but dismissed in its entirety.

I admire your loyalty towards being committed to supporting your staff. However, whilst there remains any form of doubt about the McCanns, do you not think it is a duty to protect the public from potential Fraud?

Whilst you may disagree with the points I make, I make them from the Final Report of the Portuguese Police who have investigated this case and have concluded that Maddie died in the apartment, which makes the McCanns fund fraudulent. It is, therefore, of public concern that your website links directly to the McCanns website where people, who are not aware of the Portuguese Police Final Report, are invited to donate to a Fund which cannot possibly locate Madeleine given that she is dead. We all know that the McCanns have used this public money to pay their mortgage. Is this what you are supporting? You are supporting a fraudulent Fund that pays their mortgage? If you intend to keep misleading the public with your support of the McCanns by using a public hospital online noticeboard, should you not at least put a disclaimer on your site telling people that their donations might be used for mortgage payments?

Given the nature of the evidence found in the McCanns apartment and hire car, might I ask in what way you are committed to finding Madeleine given that the sniffer dogs detected not only blood, but death?

Regardless of how many people at the Leicester hospitals know the McCanns personally, it is not acceptable to deliberately mislead members of the public just because the McCanns say they are innocent. The police do not say they are innocent. I would rather believe the police, who have spent over a year investigating them, than the McCanns who deliberately neglected their children, and put them in obvious danger, for the sake of a tapas meal. That, in itself, should require you to take all mention of their fraudulent fund off your hospital online noticeboard. It is ethically and morally proper to do so.

I will now go even further to ask if you think it is important to support your patients and protect them from any kind of risk, particularly where negligence is involved?

Dr Gerry McCann, and even Dr David Payne who also works at LRI, are guilty of child neglect at the very least - the entire group of doctors left their children unattended every night of their holiday. The McCanns sedated their children so they could go out drinking. This is abuse aswell as negligence. Negligence so serious that Madeleine is believed to be dead, based on the evidence of two British sniffer dogs. You will know that the sniffer dogs detected the scent of death in the McCanns apartment and in the car they hired 25 days later.

Should patients be subjected to treatment from doctors who admit negligence? Indeed, should patients be allowed to be in contact with a doctor who is believed to be involved in the death of his daughter and concealment of her body? Should a patient also be subjected to treatment by Dr David Payne who is suspected of paedophilia, as given in a witness statement to the Portuguese police?

What Rights have your patients got when you decide that they can be treated by doctors such as these, simply because you know the family? Yes, the case has been shelved pending further evidence - but the McCanns have NOT been cleared of any involvement. Mr Amaral stated quite clearly: "It is not a declaration of innocence" that the case has been shelved pending further enquiries. He made this statement shortly after he was removed from the investigation by Gordon Brown, due to pressure from the McCanns. Why would an innocent parent ask for the removal of the chief investigator who was close to finding their daughter?

Shouldn't Drs McCann and Payne be suspended, until the case is officially resolved, for the safety of your patients? You may argue that you feel your patients are safe with Dr McCann, but his daughter wasn't was she?

Indeed, it was felt that Dr Harold Shipman's patients were safe with him and look what happened there. Then there are other doctors whose patients were not safe - Dr Colin Norris, Nurse Beverley Allitt, etc.

Why is the NHS blatantly allowing such a risk towards their patients? Kate McCann said she was in contact with 6 dead bodies shortly before she went on holiday. That's quite an alarming number of dead bodies, for a GP, given that she only worked one-and-a-half days per week.

Why are these doctors allowed to continue to work within the NHS just because you know the family and choose to disagree with the points I make that are taken from an official police report? It's hardly a very good reason to subject your patients to potential risk and fraud.

I would be grateful for your views because, as a member of the public, I feel I have a right to know what is happening within a public service that I contribute towards with my tax, and your response that you will continue to mislead the public because you know the family is not a good enough answer.

I appreciate that this is an awkward situation for you, but there is no 'arguido' status at the moment and therefore no restriction on freedom of speech about the investigation - but I feel the consequences regarding the risk to your patients and the general public, and the abuse of power surrounding this sinister case, must be addressed.

Jill Havern
-----
(link to other dodgy doctors for my own reference, not sent to UHL)
Link to hospital online noticeboard and link to search results here