Then that deal needs looking into, how it was financed and signed off, as well as at what point did they communicate their failure to the trust re time.
and my point re vetting is in light of...
Former watchdog boss Michael Lockwood denies charges of raping a girl under 16 and indecent assault.
www.bbc.co.uk
It was done by the Royal College of Paediatrics. You can look into it in more detail yourself, although in short it raised some concerns and not others.
The point being, however, that the RCP was chosen by the Executive Team, and its findings were non-binding.* This is the point that
@COYBL25 made.
They chose the organisation and chose to perceive the findings how they wished, or that's how I've understood it. The Executives still held all the power.
It was not independent in the sense that we'd all hope, so this is where an independent investigatory body should come into play. The hotline should go to them.
The senior managers and executives, who wield so much power in the NHS, should not be able to interfere, and should themselves not be exempt for scrutiny.
In terms of vetting and your concerns - he will have been vetted, and look how much use it did there. That's not a glib comment as I'm trying to make a point.
The head of the IOCP, who was never a cop by the way, was appointed even though vetted because it examines criminal records, family associations et al.
For sensitive posts, it goes even further, but again it isn’t a perfect process. Unless you've committed a crime or have intelligence against you, you'll pass.
So, should we stop having an investigatory body because of fears of vetting, even though it provides greater risk of not having one by letting people go free?
For serious examples like this (although he's still innocent as of this time), there are numerous staff in the IOCP who contribute to a much fairer, accountable system.
