54000DOCTORS.org


Because the NHS needs 54 000 junior doctors to have ...

Whistle-blowing
protection 

What others are saying about the case

the case

...in a Nutshell

Read the full case

THE LEGAL DISPUTE:

Some recent updates from us:

4 against 1 ...
... instead of fighting the case on the facts, the NHS, the Deanery/Health Education England and the Secretary of State for Health instructed 4 separate law firms against me...
READ MORE
Our Appeal ...
...we recently won leave to appeal the Preliminary Hearing Judgment that agreed with HEE’s approach. If our appeal fails the Judgment will be binding on all future whistle-blowing cases...
READ MORE

How this case affects you?

  • If you are a PATIENT:

    Do you want the doctor treating you to have adequate whistle-blowing protection so that they can speak openly to their employer about safety? Do you think they will stick their neck out and put their career on the line for you or your care if they don’t?

  • If you a deanery doctor:

    Do you want the Deanery to be able to damage your career on account of something you say about safety or training without you being able to hold it to account for its actions in an Employment Tribunal – like an employer in any other sector?

  • If you want a safe and open NHS:

    Health Education England is the only organisation with ultimate power over the long term employment of 54,000 doctors. Do you think it is right that they should be able to get out of being taken to an Employment Tribunal, and in doing so succeed in preventing serious issues in a whistleblowing case being heard in court?

JOIN THE CONVERSATION ON TWITTER

USE HASHTAG: #54kd
see what other people are saying

See our open letters

Plus responses we've received.

Why did the BMA support our case, engage laywers then run like the wind 5 days before a deadline?

Very properly, I have been asked by a considerable number of people to provide more detail about the BMA actions in respect of my case.

I do feel a sense of duty with regard to adequately explaining these issues more widely and in particular to medical colleagues. I have to be careful not to enter into ‘disputed fact territory’ at the risk of prejudicing current or future legal proceedings.

With this in mind, I am satisfied that the below cannot be disputed by Gateley or the BMA. I invite challenge from either the BMA or Gateley if I have got anything wrong and I will happily apologise.

Find out more

The National "elf" Service and the Whistle-blowing Elf

A big thank you for helping us reach £10,000 in a month

Our supporters helped us raise a total of:

£42,540

As with all CrowdJustice cases, funds raised go directly to the legal team's client account. Thank you for helping us reach our target goal of £5000 (Stretch goal £50,000)

support us

What can you do to help?