Talk:Ian Kennedy (legal scholar)
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
Fiddled the death statistics for Mid Staffs Hospital whilst Head of the HealthCare Commisssion
editIn the following BMJ article:
http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d2900.extract
he admits he altered figures regarding excess deaths at Mid Staffs Hospital. Is this sufficient for the Solicitors Regulation Authority to issue a written rebuke? His lame excuse for ditching evidence of the high unexpected death rate at this Skutari-esque health care facility was that he felt people would not be able to understand statistics. Was his function not to ensure everyone could understand them? This led to no action being taken to rectify the poor standards there, and to additional deaths, as well as making the public feel the entire legal profession are untrustworthy. Is this covered by the SRA Code of Conduct?
Rule 3 of SRA disciplinary powers indicates that the Mid Staffs victims should put in a complaint about this admission, and get a 'written rebuke ' issued.
Rule 3 – Disciplinary powers says : (1)The circumstances in which the SRA may make a disciplinary decision to give a regulated person a written rebuke are when the following three conditions are met: (a)the first condition is that the SRA is satisfied that the act or omission by the regulated person which gives rise to the SRA finding fulfils one or more of the following in that it: (i)was deliberate [ADMITTED IN ARTICLE] (ii)caused or had the potential to cause loss or significant inconvenience to any other person; [CAUSED DEATHS OF MANY MORE PEOPLE] (iii) was or was related to a failure or refusal to ascertain, recognise or comply with the regulated person's professional or regulatory obligations such as, but not limited to, compliance with requirements imposed by legislation or rules made pursuant to legislation, the SRA, the Law Society, the Legal Complaints Service, the Tribunal or the court; [HE HAD A DUTY TO BE HONEST AND CONSIDER ALL THE EVIDENCE] (iv)continued for an unreasonable period taking into account its seriousness; [HE ADMITS IT WAS FOR 3 YEARS IN THE ARTICLE] (v)persisted after the regulated person realised or should have realised that it was improper; [MUST HAVE KNOWN IT WAS] (vi)had the potential to mislead clients, the court or other persons, whether or not that was appreciated by the regulated person; [WAS DESIGNED TO MISLEAD] (vii)affected or had the potential to affect a vulnerable person or child; [MANY PATIENTS ARE VULNERABLE , AND SOME WERE CHILDREN. ALSO THE CHILDREN OF VICTIMS WERE AFFECTED BY THEIR DEATHS]. (viii)affected or had the potential to affect a substantial, high-value or high-profile matter; or [HE DID IT BECAUSE IT WAS A HIGH PROFILE MATTER] (ix)formed or forms part of a pattern of misconduct or other regulatory failure by the regulated person; 212.139.101.189 (talk) 09:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)one of the statistic's relatives212.139.101.189 (talk) 09:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Excising or omitting figures for a reason you consider justifiable is not the same thing as fiddling them. IXIA (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Unique name of article
edit"Ian Kennedy (lawyer)" is not unique as there is an Ian Kennedy QC. This one is Professor Sir Ian Kennedy. Can anyone advise what the Wikipedia naming convention would suggest as a unique name. Millstream3 (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
"Academic lawyer"? Or revert to "Sir Ian Kennedy". IXIA (talk) 07:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- No need to sweat this yet, really, until and unless the QC becomes notable. In that case, we could look at what really distinguishes the two of them (and "Sir Ian" would not be the way to go, given our naming conventions). --Orange Mike | Talk 20:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Someone's been going through a number of Wikipedia entries and pasting in identikit denunciations of the College of Medicine. I've just removed the one here and replaced it with something more balanced - retaining links to the BMJ, but removing references to the blogger David Colquhoun who as a self-publisher is conveying his own view, and is hardly a notable well balanced source. 78.33.29.104 (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)