Wednesday, 22 February 2017

Thousands Of Street Parties For Jo Cox? Who Was She, The Queen Of England?

Don't get me wrong, the lady should not be forgotten, if you're interested in remembering someone who courted controversy throughout her political career. There's no excuse for what that man did to her, but one must get these things into perspective.

Even our beloved Queen, when her time comes, will not be afforded such pomp and circumstance as a politician who, despite the tragedy which befell her, does not deserve to be placed on a pedestal when many, many others have died just as needlessly, brutally and dramatically.

Where were all the street parties for Lee Rigby and Jill Dando? What about those poor souls captured by terrorists and savagely beheaded? Are these people of less importance than a woman who, many believe, brought about her own woes by sticking her nose where it clearly didn't belong?

What next for Jo Cox, after the dozens of tribute events after her death when there were none for more deserving folk...a petition to have her beatified?



Friday, 17 February 2017

Chantry Vets Wakefield: Further Investigation Into The Death Of Our Dog

Without prejudice



When Bozzy died last April, after being prescribed Tramadol by Chantry Vets of Wakefield, we received hundreds of messages of sympathy and support from around the world. Bozzy was very much-loved, and as such we owe it to those who loved him, and who contacted us, to inform them what is happening regarding the investigation into his death.

The following letter which we dispatched to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is not illegal, and breaches no copyright. The words are all by me and have included no copyrighted extracts from any correspondences sent to me by Chantry Vets or the RCVS. I have broken no laws in making my comments public. However, should Chantry Vets feel obliged to take legal action against me, in whichever capacity they choose, I will be greatly indebted to them because it will enable this very upsetting matter to be heard in a court of law, and appropriate legal/disciplinary action to be taken.

14th February 2017

Re Chantry Vets: Nordmann, Serrano & Flood
My response to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Ref: CAM.MP. 05.16-C024
In response to your letter of 24 January 2017:
Firstly, the comments made by ALL of the vets involved with this case—that I quibbled over their fees—is a downright lie. We used Chantry Vets for over twelve years. We never had any problems with them until now, and we have NEVER complained about their fees. Ask yourselves this. If we have been satisfied with the fees for over twelve years, why would quibble over them now? It is obvious that the vets involved have colluded in this matter before submitting their reports to you to ensure that they tell the same story.
At no stage during Bosworth’s illness did I ever request a free home visit, though Louise Callaghan did state that Chantry Vets would provide an ambulance free of charge, should one be available. Bosworth was by this time too ill for me to accept this kind offer. Indeed, Ms. Callaghan is the only person at Chantry Vets (aside from Helen, the receptionist at Gills Yard) who has conducted herself with any degree of professionalism or dignity.
I add too that I take exception to the RCVS giving the impression of siding with these people in declaring that professional misconduct has not taken place, when it quite clearly has.
Secondly, regarding Ms. Nordman’s statement. In this she claimed that Bosworth was seriously ill.
To me, in person—in front of a Spanish lady student vet, and the ambulance driver—who will be subpoenaed if/when this matter goes to court—she said of Bozzy, “He’s very fit for an ancient dog.” Similarly these witnesses will testify that I did NOT quibble over the costs. Indeed, costs were not even discussed.
Ms. Nordmann’s claim that I quibbled over the costs, her statement that I asked for the cheaper 50mg Tramadol when she says that Bosworth should have been given only the more expensive 10mg dosage, is an excuse to get herself off the hook. Any responsible vet would not have given a dog (which she later claimed to be seriously ill, the clinical details of which were included in her statement, and in RCVS’s two subsequent missives to myself) FIVE times the recommended dosage, whether the client quibbled over the cost or not. If she genuinely believed that Bosworth was seriously ill, while telling me that he was not, then she is clearly lying in her statement, or she was lying to me. BOTH of her accounts cannot be correct. I therefore accuse her of killing my dog, inadvertently or not, by way of medical negligence.
Thirdly, regarding Serrano’s statement. The first time he called my home, my son answered the 20-seconds call and was unable to understand his bad English. In his original statement he says that he called me several times on 29 April, when in fact he called ONCE on 28 April. The phone records supplied by Chantry Vets prove this: the call on 29 April at 12.56 (9 minutes duration) was from Louise Callaghan. They have not even highlighted the call from Serrano on the 28th, which is suggestive of a cover-up and yet more lies from these people. I called Serrano back after my son hung up, and the conversation was brief. He made no mention of having checked any Tramodol data sheet. Indeed, he did not know any details of Bosworth’s case, or that Bosworth had been prescribed the drug until I told him, and bearing in mind that he was on the line but a few minutes would have had insufficient time to check while talking to me. He told me to stop the Tramadol if it was making Bosworth ill. He offered no other advice and his statement extant of this is a tissue of lies.
Fourthly, Lisa Flood’s statements in both of the RCVS reports present a tissue of lies from start to finish. I may reiterate from my previous statement that Lisa Flood did NOT call me at all. All but one of the calls from Chantry Vets (the one from Serrano) were from the administrator. It was I who called Ms Flood, and our conversation lasted all of three minutes, after which she became so stroppy that I politely excused myself and hung up. I also reiterate that the RCVS must have had some reservations about Ms Flood, or they would not have taken my complaint about her to Level 2 in their investigation. Ms Flood was not at Gills Yard but in Alverthorpe, and I was told by the administrator that she could only speak for a few minutes because she was about to go to surgery. Ms Flood told me that she had NO access to Bosworth’s notes, and that she had no knowledge of his medical history and that I would have to contact someone at Gills Yard who had seen him. Her exact words were, “Don’t complain to me about your dog. It was not seen by me and is not my concern,”—which is the exact opposite of what she said in her statement to you. I would advise her that if she is going to make up stories, then at least try and be consistent. Also, Bosworth was not an “it”, which displays a complete lack of respect on Ms Flood’s part. Neither did she discuss anything about having a home visit, and at no time during our brief conversation did I ask about fees or did she tell me what these were. Indeed, after being with Chantry Vets for twelve years I was well aware of the consultation fees, etc, and I have never once complained about them. I did tell her that the medication Ms Nordmann had prescribed was killing my dog. She said that Tramadol was not dangerous, and that if Bosworth was ill it was because of something that I had done, and not the vet. It was at this point that I ended my conversation with this arrogant woman.
I did I say that I would contact the media—this was said not to Lisa Flood, who it telling yet another lie, but to Louise Callaghan in a subsequent email.
You say in your statement that the difference between Ms Flood’s statement and my own may be attributed to “error or lapse of memory”, as opposed to her dishonesty, and I find this flagrantly offensive and even suggestive that someone at the RCVS may be watching her back. There was no “lapse of memory” when she was stating, most categorically in her statement to you, what she claimed she had said. She appeared to remember it word for word, in my opinion because she rehearsed to scenario within her mind before committing it to paper. A person cannot be categorically certain of one thing one minute, then claim “lapse of memory” the next. Her EXACT intention was to mislead and deceive. Also, any outsider reading certain crucial contingencies within the statements of the three vets would conclude, as I have, that they colluded with each other to ensure that they all told the RCVS the same story, by means of invented conversations with myself.
In conclusion, I more than welcome a public hearing into this matter, either before your Committee or within a court of law. Our beloved dog died because of the incompetence of Chantry Vets, who I hasten to add were once before investigated for the death of a puppy (this was in the press and the vet was suspended). Furthermore, none of the three vets involved in this matter have conducted themselves with any degree of professionalism, courtesy and respect.
David Bret