Professor John Rees Sends a Smoking Gun.

To Prof John Rees.
Who requires psychiatric evaluation again?

Many of you will remember the case of Virginia Jibowu. Virginia was featured nationally and internationally for her case against Kings College Medical School. As many will recall, Matrix Chambers gave her an extremely good chance of succeeding in her case. During the various disclosures of documents, the following was uncovered.

From: John Rees [SeJohn.Rees@kcl.ac.uk]

Sent: 05 October 2007 17:57

To: Hannah Sewell

Subject: FW: Urgent problem- confidential

Attachments: Letter to Dr. Clarke - 4.10.07.doc; Virginia Letter 27.9.07 - Annotated Explanations.doc

Letter to Dr. Clarke Virginia Letter - 4.10.07... 27.9.07 - Anno...

Dear Hannah,

I wonder if you would be prepared to meet this student with me next week. It seems to me we have to ask her to withdraw her accusations in writing or it needs to go to the college complaints system as harrassment.

My view was that we ask her to withdraw in writing and suggest that this looks as if there might be a problem and suggest she sees a psychiatrist.

If she agrees to neither we go to a formal complaint if she agrees to the withdrawal but not the psychiatrist we say, ok if she doesn't agree to that and there really is no problem then we don't expect to have any further issues, if there were we would need readdress this.

Best wishes

John

letter 2 is a long read!

NB -We note that the good Professor cannot spell harassment. Actions speak louder than words I suppose :).

This is what Kings College states in their equality and diversity section

"King’s College London has a dedicated Equality & Diversity Department which aims to embed equality and diversity issues into every aspect of the College’s activity".

Apparently, after Virginia's case, Kings College have invented a new policy in the event of discrimination. Everyone can read it here.

No doubt Mr Rees of Kings College would have read the following present here.

2.3 Victimisation is defined as treating a person/group of people less favourably because of action they have taken under or in connection with equality legislation – for example, if someone made a formal complaint of discrimination or has given evidence in a tribunal case.

4 Students are advised to act promptly and should not feel that the unwanted behaviour is their fault or that they have to wait until the situation is intolerable.

There are a lot of sections in the document I could refer to and one section talks about taking the concerns seriously and instigating a formal complaints procedure. No where in the policy does it suggest that the mental state of the complainant should be questioned or referrals made to a psychiatrist. For avoidance of doubt, Ms Jibowu is a perfectly stable lady with no problems.

I am not really sure what Prof Rees has to say about this email. He appears to be head of division/Dean of Undergraduate Education at Kings College London Medical School.

Prof Rees has written extensively in the Student BMJ. He appears to be a consultant as well and is a registered medical doctor courtesy of the General Medical Council. The General Medical Council guidance states as follows. Good ol Jon boy would have read this. Rule 46 states as follows

"You must treat your colleagues fairly and with respect. You must not bully or harass them, or unfairly discriminate against them by allowing your personal views* to affect adversely your professional relationship with them. You should challenge colleagues if their behaviour does not comply with this guidance".

Anyhow, Jon boy will be acutely aware that what he has written is something called a legal smoking gun in terms of litigation. Most people are aware of Section 2 of the Race Relations Act 1976.

2. Discrimination by way of victimisation.

— (1) A person ( “the discriminator") discriminates against another person ( “the person victimised") in any circumstances relevant for the purposes of any provision of this Act if he treats the person victimised less favourably than in those circumstances he treats or would treat other persons, and does so by reason that the person victimised has—
(a) brought proceedings against the discriminator or any other person under this Act; or
(b) given evidence or information in connection with proceedings brought by any person against the discriminator or any other person under this Act; or
(c) otherwise done anything under or by reference to this Act in relation to the discriminator or any other person; or
(d) alleged that the discriminator or any other person has committed an act which (whether or not the allegation so states) would amount to a contravention of this Act,
or by reason that the discriminator knows that the person victimised intends to do any of those things, or suspects that the person victimised has done, or intends to do, any of them.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to treatment of a person by reason of any allegation made by him if the allegation was false and not made in good faith.

I am sure Jon boy can read the above because reading is a basic skill for any doctor. It may have been wiser for him to have done his reading before opening his rather large mouth.

I suppose he had no idea that said email would end up online for millions to observe how Kings deals with a complaint on race relations. Whats he going to do? Is he going to place all of the ethnic minority who feel discriminated against under the psychiatrist's microscope? Given there is established evidence of racism at medical schools, that's going to be rather a lot of medical students subjected to psychiatric evaluation.

It is interesting to note that Kings College London's Institute of Psychiatry [ Maudsley] has a long history of their involvement in research relating to IQ differences between Caucasians and minority groups. The best known is Professor Eysenck'. This Professor of Psychology concluded "Among other things, he argued that psychotherapy was virtually worthless, that blacks scored lower on I.Q. tests than whites at least partly because of their genetic makeup".

Perhaps, this is why Professor Rees underestimates us all. Perhaps he feels we will not notice the meaning of his words and that the minority groups all deserve psychiatric evaluation by default. Actually, what Rees is telling us is this - you cannot be in a minority group and raise issues of discrimination. If you do this, you will immediately be subjected to psychiatric evaluation. This would be deemed discriminatory treatment and suppression of free speech. I believe that would mean a violation of Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 with Article 14 of the same act.

Perhaps he really is the superior white male and we are all simply inferior beings. Then we observe the psychiatric profile of a bully and victimiser. Bullying on Line has an interesting summary.

* is a convincing, practised liar and when called to account, will make up anything spontaneously to fit their needs at that moment
* has a Jekyll and Hyde nature - is vile, vicious and vindictive in private, but innocent and charming in front of witnesses; no-one can (or wants to) believe this individual has a vindictive nature - only the current target of the serial bully's aggression sees both sides; whilst the Jekyll side is described as "charming" and convincing enough to deceive personnel, management and a tribunal, the Hyde side is frequently described as "evil"; Hyde is the real person, Jekyll is an act
* excels at deception and should never be underestimated in their capacity to deceive * uses excessive charm and is always plausible and convincing when peers, superiors or others are present (charm can be used to deceive as well as to cover for lack of empathy)
* is glib, shallow and superficial with plenty of fine words and lots of form - but there's no substance
* is possessed of an exceptional verbal facility and will outmanoeuvre most people in verbal interaction, especially at times of conflict
* is often described as smooth, slippery, slimy, ingratiating, fawning, toadying, obsequious, sycophantic
* relies on mimicry, repetition and regurgitation to convince others that he or she is both a "normal" human being and a tough dynamic manager, as in extolling the virtues of the latest management fads and pouring forth the accompanying jargon * is unusually skilled in being able to anticipate what people want to hear and then saying it plausibly
* cannot be trusted or relied upon
* fails to fulfil commitments
* is emotionally retarded with an arrested level of emotional development; whilst language and intellect may appear to be that of an adult, the bully displays the emotional age of a five-year-old
* is emotionally immature and emotionally untrustworthy
* exhibits unusual and inappropriate attitudes to sexual matters, sexual behaviour and bodily functions; underneath the charming exterior there are often suspicions or hints of sex discrimination and sexual harassment, perhaps also sexual dysfunction, sexual inadequacy, sexual perversion, sexual violence or sexual abuse * in a relationship, is incapable of initiating or sustaining intimacy
* holds deep prejudices (eg against the opposite gender, people of a different sexual orientation, other cultures and religious beliefs, foreigners, etc - prejudiced people are unvaryingly unimaginative) but goes to great lengths to keep this prejudicial aspect of their personality secret
* is self-opinionated and displays arrogance, audacity, a superior sense of entitlement and sense of invulnerability and untouchability
* has a deep-seated contempt of clients in contrast to his or her professed compassion * is a control freak and has a compulsive need to control everyone and everything you say, do, think and believe; for example, will launch an immediate personal attack attempting to restrict what you are permitted to say if you start talking knowledgeably about psychopathic personality or antisocial personality disorder in their presence - but aggressively maintains the right to talk (usually unknowledgeably) about anything they choose; serial bullies despise anyone who enables others to see through their deception and their mask of sanity
* displays a compulsive need to criticise whilst simultaneously refusing to value, praise and acknowledge others, their achievements, or their existence
* shows a lack of joined-up thinking with conversation that doesn't flow and arguments that don't hold water * flits from topic to topic so that you come away feeling you've never had a proper conversation
* refuses to be specific and never gives a straight answer
* is evasive and has a Houdini-like ability to escape accountability
* undermines and destroys anyone who the bully perceives to be an adversary, a potential threat, or who can see through the bully's mask
* is adept at creating conflict between those who would otherwise collate incriminating information about them
* is quick to discredit and neutralise anyone who can talk knowledgeably about antisocial or sociopathic behaviors
* may pursue a vindictive vendetta against anyone who dares to held them accountable, perhaps using others' resources and contemptuous of the damage caused to other people and organisations in pursuance of the vendetta
* is also quick to belittle, undermine, denigrate and discredit anyone who calls, attempts to call, or might call the bully to account
* gains gratification from denying people what they are entitled to
* is highly manipulative, especially of people's perceptions and emotions (eg guilt)
* poisons peoples' minds by manipulating their perceptions
* when called upon to share or address the needs and concerns of others, responds with impatience, irritability and aggression
* is arrogant, haughty, high-handed, and a know-all
* often has an overwhelming, unhealthy and narcissistic attention-seeking need to portray themselves as a wonderful, kind, caring and compassionate person, in contrast to their behaviour and treatment of others; the bully sees nothing wrong with their behavior and chooses to remain oblivious to the discrepancy between how they like to be seen and how they are seen by others
* is spiritually dead although may loudly profess some religious belief or affiliation * is mean-spirited, officious, and often unbelievably petty
* is mean, stingy, and financially untrustworthy
* is greedy, selfish, a parasite and an emotional vampire * is always a taker and never a giver
* is convinced of their superiority and has an overbearing belief in their qualities of leadership but cannot distinguish between leadership (maturity, decisiveness, assertiveness, co-operation, trust, integrity) and bullying (immaturity, impulsiveness, aggression, manipulation, distrust, deceitfulness)
* often fraudulently claims qualifications, experience, titles, entitlements or affiliations which are ambiguous, misleading, or bogus
* often misses the semantic meaning of language, misinterprets what is said, sometimes wrongly thinking that comments of a satirical, ironic or general negative nature apply to him or herself
* knows the words but not the song * is constantly imposing on others a false reality made up of distortion and fabrication * sometimes displays a seemingly limitless demonic energy especially when engaged in attention-seeking activities or evasion of accountability and is often a committeeaholic or apparent workaholic

Who needs to seek a psychiatrist's evaluation again? :)

Dr Rita Pal

Sphere: Related Content