Sly covering the “From” portion of his train ticket is strange - we all know which station he leaves from. I started to type out the things we all know about them, but it got hella creepy so I hit delete.
Maybe he wasn't travelling from where we think he would be travellingSly covering the “From” portion of his train ticket is strange - we all know which station he leaves from. I started to type out the things we all know about them, but it got hella creepy so I hit delete.
No. That’s not how regulatory discipline works. There will have been an initial assessment to see if an interim orders hearing is needed to put conditions on her practise which hasn’t happened. Regular assessments will have been carried out during the investigation phase and the preparation for the hearing and Clemmie’s employer will have been expected to keep a close eye and flag any concerns promptly to the NMC. The role of the NMC is to protect the public and maintain confidence in the profession. I’ve seen registrants who pose no direct safety risk being removed from the register due to their actions essentially bringing the profession into disrepute and then showing no insight into their behaviours. They have posed no clinical risk to patients but their behaviour has been incompatible with being in the register. Insight is critical and showing embedded change in behaviour. That is why, if this is insta linked, the best advice would have been to keep entirely off social media and for Simon not to have featured her at all. If I were on the panel and this FTP is linked to social media, I would ideally expect Clemmie to show she has kept entirely of social media except in a private capacity. At the moment, it looks like mission creep back on. FOD has a commercialised platform with 500k plus followers. Why is she on there? Is FOD trying to leverage the trust and confidence placed in midwives by the public for their financial gain? That is not acceptable and FOD’s account is not private social media use. The charges maybe entirely unrelated to social media but still the general advice is to keep very private on social media to minimise the risk of the regulator finding something else on there worthy of investigationMaybe he wasn't travelling from where we think he would be travelling
As she has continued to practice as a midwife it is highly unlikely that she would be struck off otherwise they would have exposed themselves to significant risk of successful claims of malpractice based on her actions.
bleeping desperateView attachment 1939470
He’s so current with his content
I love your contributions to this thread firstly - you’re clearly a very well versed professional so thank you for taking the time to share these insights with us.Why is she on there? Is FOD trying to leverage the trust and confidence placed in midwives by the public for their financial gain? That is not acceptable and FOD’s account is not private social media use.
Shame it’s to early for a title suggestionHe’s such a naff bastard. duck off back to your drippy dungeon billy no mates
No hun as long as we remember to repost it towards the end it can still be used.Shame it’s to early for a title suggestion
Same I went to check because I had been warned.I was warned but I still clicked
It’s like he’s been reading Viz (showing my age there) or watching a Carry on film. But instead of it making him sound funny, he just comes across as a seedy sad duck!Stay safe :
Lube on.
Strap on
To last and go harder .