Attack on parliment

1234568»

Comments

  • secretsam
    secretsam Posts: 5,120
    Imposter wrote:
    Not sure why the junior doc would be disciplined for accurately describing the injuries of un-named individuals who did indeed have life-threatening or life-changing injuries. What would he/she be disciplined for?

    The Trust has comms people. Her words were quoted across the world. What if she'd been mistaken? Plus she wasn't authorized to speak for the ED AFAIK.
    It's just a hill. Get over it.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    SecretSam wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    Not sure why the junior doc would be disciplined for accurately describing the injuries of un-named individuals who did indeed have life-threatening or life-changing injuries. What would he/she be disciplined for?

    The Trust has comms people. Her words were quoted across the world. What if she'd been mistaken? Plus she wasn't authorized to speak for the ED AFAIK.

    I don't see why a doctor on duty in A&E would be mistaken, any more than the PR dept would. Don't really understand your point. Accurately describing the general state of injuries received when asked would have been exactly the right thing to do, IMO. If the press had asked the comms dept, the comms dept would have contacted the duty consultant, waited several hours for the duty consultant to reply and then got exactly the same info that the junior doc had handed out in the first place.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,484
    Imposter wrote:
    SecretSam wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    Not sure why the junior doc would be disciplined for accurately describing the injuries of un-named individuals who did indeed have life-threatening or life-changing injuries. What would he/she be disciplined for?

    The Trust has comms people. Her words were quoted across the world. What if she'd been mistaken? Plus she wasn't authorized to speak for the ED AFAIK.

    I don't see why a doctor on duty in A&E would be mistaken, any more than the PR dept would. Don't really understand your point. Accurately describing the general state of injuries received when asked would have been exactly the right thing to do, IMO. If the press had asked the comms dept, the comms dept would have contacted the duty consultant, waited several hours for the duty consultant to reply and then got exactly the same info that the junior doc had handed out in the first place.
    The "wrong" person got their 15 minutes.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    SecretSam wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    Not sure why the junior doc would be disciplined for accurately describing the injuries of un-named individuals who did indeed have life-threatening or life-changing injuries. What would he/she be disciplined for?

    The Trust has comms people. Her words were quoted across the world. What if she'd been mistaken? Plus she wasn't authorized to speak for the ED AFAIK.

    I don't see why a doctor on duty in A&E would be mistaken, any more than the PR dept would. Don't really understand your point. Accurately describing the general state of injuries received when asked would have been exactly the right thing to do, IMO. If the press had asked the comms dept, the comms dept would have contacted the duty consultant, waited several hours for the duty consultant to reply and then got exactly the same info that the junior doc had handed out in the first place.
    The "wrong" person got their 15 minutes.

    You may be right. But who says she was the 'wrong' person? I'd be surprised if she was speaking without the knowledge of her dept or her seniors.
  • keef66
    keef66 Posts: 13,123
    Imposter wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    SecretSam wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    Not sure why the junior doc would be disciplined for accurately describing the injuries of un-named individuals who did indeed have life-threatening or life-changing injuries. What would he/she be disciplined for?

    The Trust has comms people. Her words were quoted across the world. What if she'd been mistaken? Plus she wasn't authorized to speak for the ED AFAIK.

    I don't see why a doctor on duty in A&E would be mistaken, any more than the PR dept would. Don't really understand your point. Accurately describing the general state of injuries received when asked would have been exactly the right thing to do, IMO. If the press had asked the comms dept, the comms dept would have contacted the duty consultant, waited several hours for the duty consultant to reply and then got exactly the same info that the junior doc had handed out in the first place.
    The "wrong" person got their 15 minutes.

    You may be right. But who says she was the 'wrong' person? I'd be surprised if she was speaking without the knowledge of her dept or her seniors.

    She was effectively door stepped by the journalist and was obviously still coming to terms with what just happened. Be pretty harsh if she was disciplined in the circumstances. She should be offered counselling.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,484
    Imposter wrote:
    You may be right. But who says she was the 'wrong' person? I'd be surprised if she was speaking without the knowledge of her dept or her seniors.
    I agree.
    I think it those who think they are the "right" people who were miffed. The comms. dept. bods.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.

Categories