Sheffield's Hospital consultant suspended

[natjack]

here you go. English translation - much better than Google, but still better to read in Czech.

 

http://gatesofvienna.net/2016/03/czech-m-d-in-britain-dont-let-the-czech-republic-follow-the-example-of-the-uk/

 

The problem is that Mr. Culik (Czech lecturer at Glasgow University) the founder of http://blisty.cz/ (also known in the online community as an "Attention W*ore") has grassed-up another Czech, because of the inability to express his own different views in other way.

 

The article is far from inflammatory. It is well written factual observations of the 2 different cultures living in Britain from a view of a non-British immigrant.

This is what I was thinking when I read the original article. Not just the British that have jobsworths then. But maybe he learned the knack from working here

[Branyy]

He wasn't suspended for the headscarf issue was he?

The other person who made the complaint against him is a Dr who lectures in a university and is an expert in Czech languages so I can't see it being a malicious complaint.

... sigh... I wasn't mentioning suspension. I was talking about the headscarf issue.

 

So, consultant Rogozov is also a doctor with good reputation and excellent achievements. But you don't trust his complaints. But you trust complaints of some other guy against him. I see you trust only information which already support your opinion and discard everything else. You shouldn't be so bigoted and prejudiced.

[Dannyno]

here you go. English translation - much better than Google, but still better to read in Czech.

 

http://gatesofvienna.net/2016/03/czech-m-d-in-britain-dont-let-the-czech-republic-follow-the-example-of-the-uk/

 

The problem is that Mr. Culik (Czech lecturer at Glasgow University) the founder of http://blisty.cz/ (also known in the online community as an "Attention W*ore") has grassed-up another Czech, because of the inability to express his own different views in other way.

 

The article is far from inflammatory. It is well written factual observations of the 2 different cultures living in Britain from a view of a non-British immigrant.

 

The article is an interview with the doctor by a nationalist and conservative magazine/website. And it is not factual at all. It's full of distortions and misinformation or incomplete information.

 

So for example:

 

For example, at a nearby school, the headmaster had, for the first time this year, banned the Christmas Tree.

 

This might be a reference to Jahangir Akbar, who was a headteacher in Birmingham, and who was in fact struck off the register of teachers because of his behaviour. Which is not exactly an example of "Islamification", is it? Nor is Birmingham meaningful "nearby".

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/school-head-who-banned-pupils-7117848

 

On BBC, I have, for the first time, noticed the greeting “Salaam Aleikum Merry Christmas”.

 

I haven't heard this, and no actual source is given. I could imagine a presenter saying this if the programme was aimed at a particular audience, and I'm not sure why anyone would object to that. But it's certainly not happening all the time, or even some of the time.

 

And in one comedy show on BBC on Christmas Eve, they did not lay Baby Jesus in the manger, but Baby Mohammed.

 

The clue here is that this was a comedy show, and it's also possibly blasphemous to some Muslims, so hardly an example of Islamification.

 

It's actually a reference to a 2014 episode of "Citizen Khan": https://youtu.be/5GlgIx1Kv8c

 

Again, the doctor is distorting the facts.

 

About 7 July 2005 he says, generalising wildly, "British Muslims had attacked innocent people".

 

He refers to particular incidents he claimed happened at his hospital. The headscarf thing we seem to know to be a real incident, but we don't know about the others. Given the guy's track record on the truth, I don't trust him.

 

Another claim:

 

The MPs had to debate barring Donald Trump from entering Britain — the subject of a petition signed by hundreds of thousands of British Muslims.

 

He gives the impression that only Muslims signed the petition. This is untrue.

 

I imagine the investigation revolves around the claims about behaviour in his hospital. I wouldn't surprised to hear he's lying, given what I've found by checking his factual claims against reality.

 

---------- Post added 10-03-2016 at 07:48 ----------

 

Although looking at the articles about this case, even the headscarf incident appears to be merely a claim.

 

In fact, it's not even clear what the headscarf incident was. There's an assumption he challenged someone, but he doesn't say that in the interview posted.

 

Some people are saying the headscarf confrontation has been confirmed by the hospital. Where?

 

---------- Post added 10-03-2016 at 07:54 ----------

 

Mafya, the headscarf incident has been confirmed by the hospital, it's been investigated and hospital backed Dr Rogozov in that case.

 

Where has the hospital confirmed that the incident happened, or was investigated, or that they backed Rogozov?

[Branyy]

Here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs/12185567/Hospital-suspends-consultant-who-stopped-surgeon-operating-while-wearing-headscarf.html

[sgtkate]

I've got to admit I'm struggling to understand all the arguments on this. Surely the basics are:

 

- Doctor stops colleague operating in unsuitable headwear, hospital supports doctor correctly.

- Years later doctor allegedly makes some comments about Muslims in the UK that are at best pretty pathetic and at worst islamophobic and illegal

- Doctor is being investigated for his comments and is suspended while the investigations take place as to whether he is fit to continue in his role and whether the comments are actually his words.

 

I'm honestly struggling to find anything wrong in any of this. None of us have total freedom to say what we want in public and think our employers will be fine with that. Is that fact he allegedly made islamophobic comments the problem? If he'd kicked off about gays or black people would a lot of the contentious nature go away? This thread does rapidly seem to be becoming a warzone between certain people yet again.

[mort]

This will be the only warning you get before accounts are suspended.

 

 

You can cease with the abuse and accusations. If you cannot discuss a subject civilly then don't post.

[Dannyno]

Here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs/12185567/Hospital-suspends-consultant-who-stopped-surgeon-operating-while-wearing-headscarf.html

 

This article only quotes Rogozov's allegations. The article does not quote the NHS Trust confirming that any of Rogozov's allegations, or the specific headscarf incident allegation, were reported when they are supposed to have happened, or that they were ever investigated, or that they were true, or that the Trust backed Rogozov.

 

In fact nor does Rogozov say, in that article, that he formally raised any complaints about the alleged incidents, or that they were investigated, or that this complaints were upheld or that the Trust backed him.

 

There is a comment that "She later left the hospital after an investigation backed Dr Rogozov for enforcing the strict dress code." But where does this come from?

 

So my question remains, where has the hospital confirmed that the headscaref incident (or any of the allegations) happened, or were investigated, or that they backed Rogozov over them?

 

At the moment, all we have is the demonstrably unreliable Rogosov's allegations.

Edited March 10, 2016 by Dannyno

[hauxwell]

I think if you actually read my post it says nothing about the Doctor. It relates to the wearing of inappropriate clothing in the operating theatre, which is wrong, you wear the sterile equipment provided.

 

Angel1.

 

I have read your post, and I thoroughly agree with what you said.

[Branyy]

This article only quotes Rogozov's allegations. The article does not quote the NHS Trust confirming that any of Rogozov's allegations, or the specific headscarf incident allegation, were reported when they are supposed to have happened, or that they were ever investigated, or that they were true, or that the Trust backed Rogozov.

 

In fact nor does Rogozov say, in that article, that he formally raised any complaints about the alleged incidents, or that they were investigated, or that this complaints were upheld or that the Trust backed him.

 

There is a comment that "She later left the hospital after an investigation backed Dr Rogozov for enforcing the strict dress code." But where does this come from?

 

So my question remains, where has the hospital confirmed that the headscaref incident (or any of the allegations) happened, or were investigated, or that they backed Rogozov over them?

 

At the moment, all we have is the demonstrably unreliable Rogosov's allegations.

Yes, you're probably right. We don't posses any official claim from NHS Trust. And it has been stated the the incident hasn't been made public (in 2013). So what we have are Rogosov's allegations, you call it unreliable. And then we have some Mr. Culik's allegations. Are these supposed to be reliable? Well, NHS confirmed those, as the investigation against Dr. Rogosov is ongoing. But NHS hasn't deny or confirm Rogosov's allegations yet.

 

My question is - if the incidents reported by Dr. Rogosov have happened, should have NHS (or hospital) made them public? Should they make comments (confirm or deny) on this incidents now? I think they should make a clear statement. What do you think?

[ANGELFIRE1]

I have read your post, and I thoroughly agree with what you said.

 

 

Thank goodness, I thought I was going mad somehow.

 

Angel1.