Pounds & peerages
I apologise in advance for the length of this post. When discussing the moral & financial corruption of the Labour Party, it is beyond my very limited skill set to be able to do it concisely, if for no other reason than it has become both such a huge topic & money spinner over the last few years. When it comes to the sale of peerages, not since Palmerston was flogging ‘em from the steps of the House of Commons has this practice reached such obscene levels – nice one Toni.
In the good old days, before my little Toni set about cynically & systematically destroying a lot of this country’s most beloved institutions, gongs were only handed out to proper chaps, few of whom had actually done something exceptional for blighty; nearly all of whom had done a lifetimes real work. Now, under Nu-Labour’s ‘reformed’ Honours & Awards system, a 50K bung … ooophs sorry, I meant to party donation …. to the Labour Party will get you a peerage. No wonder Mr Blah’s socialist minions were so set on the destruction of the House of Lords. All of those ‘backwoods’ peers had to go to make way for the troubadours, minstrels & party donors to be elevated to the upper house.
In similar vein, one of princess Toni’s (cough cough) ‘donors’ is now so miffed that despite ensuring that the wheels of the Labour Party are well oiled, the rewards for his errrrrrrrrr efforts have been less than forthcoming. Dr Chai Patel
the self publicist head of The Priory rehab clinics &advisor on health to Tony Blair & former health secretary Alan Milburn has be writing angry letters to the House of Lords Appointments Commission asking for reasons for its reported objection to his appointment, oblivious to the fact that because he felt the need to write such a letter, it should disqualify him in the first place.
So, purely in the interests of demonstrating the full extent of Patel’s scumbaggery, here dear readers is the full text of the letter which I publish purely to illustrate what a numpty the man is & hence how unsuitable he is to be ennobled …
"I am taking the unprecedented step of writing directly to you and your commission as it has been brought to my attention that you are inclined to advise the prime minister to withdraw my nomination as a working peer. I am utterly mystified by this and deeply distressed, particularly as I have been given not one reason to support your position.
As you may know, my family and I have already had to endure years of press leaks and innuendo regarding a situation over which I had no direct control at one of the nursing homes within the company I ran. At no time have I ever had the opportunity to present the evidence from my standpoint. My reputation has been traduced based on nothing more than biased allegations which the media has been using for its own ends whilst conveniently overlooking any evidence to the contrary.
Now I am faced with this current situation and find my reputation being impugned yet again -with absolutely no explanation from the commission. There can be no other outcome than that this will seriously affect my ability to continue working within the health and education sector.
I am led to believe that you may have received letters from the public and Members of Parliament informing you of my unsuitability for this office. To the best of my knowledge, the commission has not balanced this by requesting opinions from either myself or anyone else involved. It if is true about your advice on this particular situation, then I would urge you in common decency to have the courtesy of informing me just on what evidence you base your decision upon and your reasons for then drawing your conclusions.
I felt deeply honoured when the prime minister proposed my name. I felt that I could take on the enormous responsibility in view of my experience both as a professional as well as a businessman, having worked in the health service, investment banking and latterly managing significant and complex health and education organisation.
In addition, I have had the privilege of serving public bodies, policy-making forums and regulatory environments for many years now. I feel that, given my accumulated experience and deep sense of public service, as well as being able to devote the time to undertake the responsibility effectively, I would be able to make a contribution to the parliamentary process.
I understand that my barrister, Mary O'Rourke, sent you two letters of commendation which were volunteered at the time of the GMC enquiry. She also offered to assist you with any concerns you might have regarding the GMC. I believe she has received no response however.
I am unclear what level of enquiry you have undertaken but from my viewpoint it seems I am unable to rely on the system offering me a fair hearing. I would have expected more from a committee of such stature. I urge you to give this matter your urgent consideration so that I and my family can gain a better understanding of just what is happening. I am in the position whereby I can neither be offered the opportunity to undertake public service, nor be able to defend my reputation in day-to-day life.
I would welcome your response as a matter of urgency."
The fact that Patel hasn’t been elevated might have something to do with accusations that;
1) he failed to safeguard the health, safety & welfare of elderly residents at Lynde House, in Twickenham, in his erstwhile role as chief executive of Westminster Health Care & that he also failed to provide & maintain an environment at the house where residents received “proper standards of care”.
2) he failed to investigate claims in a letter sent to him that residents at the £800-a-week home were often left drenched in their own urine & that catering and general standards of care were poor. Personal grooming was of a poor standard with the more dependent residents looking “unkempt and dishevelled”, the report into complaints in relation to 13 patients by the McLaren Consultancy. The report said concerns and complaints have been raised repeatedly with Westminster Health Care since 1998 by residents, relatives and friends but that “insufficient action” had been taken.
When these allegations went before the General Medical Council, Patel was found not guilty but then again, the GMC should be known by its other name, the Doctors Defence League. The GMC heard that an independent report into alleged failings at the home published in 2001 found it was understaffed and under-resourced. A subsequent investigation, commissioned by the Kingston & Richmond Health Authority published in 2002, found a catalogue of failings including a high level of falls among residents & unexplained bruising which was not investigated. Still not guilty? Maybe, maybe not. Certainly not worthy of an award whose recipients should be without stain upon their characters.
Appearing as Patel did last night, on BBC2’s Newsnight programme in a vainglorious attempt to plead his case in front of the cameras should demonstrate, as if further proof is needed, how amoral he is as an individual & hence, how unsuitable he is to receive further public recognition.
Comments
Surely the fact the his name was put forward by Saint Tony should be sufficient reason to turn the application down. By this recommendation alone he is branded as a mountebank of the first order; that he is accused of abusing little old ladies is simply the cherry on the cake.
Not only should his nomination be cast aside with extreme vigour, I feel their lordships would be well advised to have the dogs set upon this cad were he ever try to set foot within the Chamber.
RM
Posted by: The Remittance Man | March 9, 2006 11:26 AM
As if the man wasn't expecting a peerage for the donation. It was public knowledge that that is the reward. Funny how he didn't go public until it appeared he wasn't going to get it. Unscrupulous hypocrite.
Posted by: Anon | March 15, 2006 5:15 PM