RacingRodent
Consul
Corrupt is applicable because he refused to carry out his lawfully mandated duties. That is one of the definitions of corruption.
But further let us be clear
99. As to Dr Mackereth’s assertion concerning the example of the six- foot tall man with a beard who wish to be addressed as “she” there is no mention of this in the claim form, nor in Mr Owen’s note of the meeting [133] which Dr Mackereth was asked to agree. As we state below whilst Dr Mackereth made clear that note was not in his words, he accepted it fairly reflected the content of the meeting (130). Further, Dr Mackereth told us orally that the questions as relayed in the note were those questions that were put to him. Nor at any time did he seek to correct the note having been given the opportunity to do so.
100. Having sought to clarify why Dr Mackereth distinctly recalled those words being used he told us that he remembered telling a national newspaper, the Daily Telegraph, of that in early July 2018. The web version of a Daily Telegraph article from that time was before us [176-180]. It was put to the claimant that made no mention of a six-foot man with a beard. Dr Mackereth told us that he had been told certain matters were redacted from the web version and that he had thought a copy of the print version at home. We asked him to check and to ensure that that was disclosed to the respondents if he located it and a copy provided to the Tribunal. No such copy was provided.
101. Nor was there any mention of a six-foot man with a beard in an article that appeared on the Daily Mail’s website [181-187]. Indeed, in the Daily Mail article that is before us (initially uploaded on 13 July and updated on 16 July) an account is given of the specific questions posed to and answered by Dr Mackereth that makes no reference whatsoever to the bearded man.
102. Accordingly, the first mention we can locate of reference to a six-foot man with a beard appears in the claimant’s witness statement dated May 2019 almost a year after the events that concern us.
Now to be clear not only would Dr Mackereth have been refusing to follow normal doctor patient practice if he had refused to address a six foot man with a beard by their chosen name and/or gender, it would also appear said six foot man was a fiction that Dr Mackereth incorporated in his own testimony only after reading about it in one or more of the papers that made that particular incident up.
Fortunately for him the tribunal
107. We remind ourselves that:-
“Remembering is a constructive process. Memories are mental constructions that bring together different types of knowledge in an act of remembering. As a consequence, memory is prone to error and is easily influenced by the recall environment, including police interviews and cross-examination in court.” 7 and it was common ground that Dr Mackereth was upset by the whole situation. We find those matters being so, he was not deliberately attempting to mislead the tribunal but instead his memory was in error
Seemed inclined to be generous...oh those evil liberals with their respect for law and due process and evidence.
There is more but reading the actual judgement, as many here are wont to do reveal that Dr Mackereth was the one who got himself in his predicament by his own actions and not due to some external prejudice by others.
Oh and further a highly selective reading of the bible has never been accepted as a defence by even ecclesiastical courts.
I suspect this would be Disablity Living Allowance. The examination for which is fucking intrusive at the best of times. Now it is common practice for doctors to refer to patients as they prefer to be referred to because often they are carrying out procedures which are stressful enough without going out of your way to maliciously insult them. Not to mention if you need to be in receipt of Disability Living Allowance then your life is probably unpleasant enough already.