Čo očakávate od novej vlády v oblasti starostlivosti o krajanov?
Navýšenie financií na krajanské aktivity
Počet hlasov: 8196 44%
Voľby internetom
Počet hlasov: 2760 15%
Zastúpenie krajanov v parlamentnom výbore
Počet hlasov: 2493 13%
Lepšia spolupráca Úradu pre Slovákov žijúcich v zahraničí s krajanmi
Počet hlasov: 3705 20%
Zastúpenie krajanov v komisii pre rozdelenie grantov
Počet hlasov: 1601 9%
Počet hlasujúcich: 18755

Mrs Gill Brook and Mr Carl Beech

@ 20.01.2013, 21:53

Informácie, ktoré sú pripojené v angličtine, treba uchovať. Je to v odozva na obvinenie Corascendei, bojovníčky za práva Slovákov a Čechov v Anglicku a vo svete, z nelegálnej liečiteľskej praxe, prostredníctvom filmu odvysielaného 14.01.2013 o 19:30 na BBC West v programe InsideOut. Vo svojom filme tvorcovia priznali, že vyliečila svojho psa z rakoviny svojou metódou Dhaxem, ale ju obvinili, že táto metóda je vraj nebezpečná pre ľudí, lebo pes a človek sa nedajú porovnať. Prečo potom tisícky psov zomiera v laboratóriách kde sa testujú prípravky proti rakovine, pre ľudí? Vo filme dokonca nepravdivo tvrdili, že istá osoba vraj zomrela v období, keď Corascendea pomáhala s jej liečením, medzi rokmi 2004-2008, ale v skutočnosti dotyčná zomrela 4 roky po tom, čo ju Corascendea naposledy videla, v roku 2012, a zatiaľ čo sa podrobovala chemoterapii. Corascendea prestala pracovať ako liečiteľka s verejnosťou v roku 2003. Corascendea je presvedčená, že skutočným motívom pre výrobu filmu bolo jej angažovanie sa za Slovensko a za Slovákov, a v prípade, že by sa jej niečo stalo, chce aby si ľudia uchovali pravdy, na základe ktorých ona sama dožadovala, aby v Anglicku vyšetrovali ľudí spojených so smrťou dvoch Slovákov. Namiesto toho ju falošne obvinili a očiernili týmto filmom. Prosím uchovajte, alebo aj rozmnožte text v angličtine, aby bol prístupný tam, kde patrí. Informácia v angličtine: Carl Beech, Head of PALS and Complaints, who is also the Hospitals’ Expert on the application of Languages, on Mrs Brook’s instruction at the end of January 2010 suspended Dr Corascendea Cathar as a Slovak linguist and voluntary hospital link worker for the Czech and Slovak communities. While they were aware that a cessation of her work will put lives, including of children, at risk, they incorrectly maintained that she does not have a CRB. While CRBs were not collected and asked for, Dr Cathar actually had a CRB. As the first direct result of the seemingly unlawful suspension of Dr Cathar, an adult mother with learning difficulties gave birth to a disabled child booked for abortion at the time of the suspension. Within a year from when Dr Cathar was prevented from working, at least six children were born to under aged girls, and a child was born to a disabled teenager who needs the help of other adults in order to raise a child. Dr Cathar acted as a voluntary link worker for contraceptive services to several vulnerable women and girls. Dr Cathar‘s own letterheads described her as a “translator, interpreter, and mediator”. It was Mrs Brook who termed her a “link worker” after Dr Cathar described to her and to Mr Beech during their meeting on 26.11.2009 the tasks she took on as favours to NHS staff who genuinely strived to secure a smooth running of all services. In the course of the same meeting Mrs Brook stated, that it was clear that the proper delivery of NHS services for the Slovak and Czech communities in Gloucester necessitates someone fulfilling that function. Dr Cathar was suspended despite a Petition by 101 users of her services, mainly patients, but also some doctors, midwives, nurses, and other medical personnel. More than one entry warned that lives would be put at risk if her services were lost. At least two senior hospital consultants wrote to Mrs Brook, outlining the importance of the retention of Dr Cathar’s services for seriously sick patients. One letter particularly cited the need of children. Another letter was specific to cardiology. Mrs Brook’s position had been created for her by Dr Frank Harsent, the hospital Chief Executive. Dr Harsent salary seemed to have been on two occasions of interest to the press. After Dr Cathar informed a headmaster of a school Mr Beech happens to be the LEA Chair of Sen Governors, that Mr Beech is named outside the UK in connection with the birth of a disabled child booked for abortion, Mrs Brook wrote a letter of 12.07.11 to Dr Cathar, indicating that she is unhappy (with Dr Cathar speaking to the headmaster), and while amongst other things, stating: “Behaviour such as this is unacceptable and will not be tolerated”. It would appear that Mrs Brook expected to be able to stop Dr Cathar from talking to people. That letter was copied to Frank Harsent, who was informed about the abortion that could not go ahead, while it seemed that no-one cared. The disabled child was born to a family of poor people from Slovakia. Since, articles on this, and two deaths of Slovaks whose proper care will have required linguistic help were made public. The first death concerned Gejza G (male) who died of heart failure. Gejza died days after nurse “A” confronted Dr Cathar Cathar, who wanted to help the patient and his distressed family, on Monday 11.10.10 around 11:00 hours at the Medical Day Case Unit, and Dr Cathar felt she had to leave. While confronting Dr Cathar, nurse “A” was listing to Dr Cathar the details of Dr Cathar’s suspension. Dr Cathar felt she had to leave, when the nurse went on to suggesting that Dr Cathar may be dishonestly trying to get into the hospital under a different name. The critically ill patient, who subsequently demanded an interpreter loud enough for patients in neighbouring wards to hear him, was left without an interpreter. The patient died unaware of his heart condition. He believed he only ought to take the antibiotics he was given. Nurse “A” was not involved in that patient’s care; it was a chance meeting. Personal communication between staff spotting Dr Cathar on the ward, and someone holding personal information on Dr Cathar in another department, may have taken place on her arrival. To Dr Cathar’s knowledge, the only person holding such information about her was Mr Beech. Encouragement may have been given to nurse “A” to confront Dr Cathar– else how would a regular nurse on a hospital ward know private details held by Mr Beech on a linguist? On her arrival, Dr Cathar greeted on the ward a nurse specialist. Dr Cathar is aware that the same nurse specialist had contacted Mr Beech about Dr Cathar shortly before Dr Cathar had been suspended, and nurse “A” worked directly under that nurse specialist. (Dr Cathar had been assisting that nurse specialist in care regarding a young man with a serious debilitating condition and the nurse specialist copied Dr Cathar in on the correspondence. Dr Cathar wrote to the nurse specialist in 2009 making them aware of difficulties involving the care and presumably, this may have been passed on to Mr Beech. Mr Beech would not tolerate Dr Cathar communicating with medical staff, and within days Dr Cathar was suspended.) Mr “B”, a 43 years old father of small children, was the second person to die, on 19.12.11 . The children watched as their father collapsed in a pool of blood under the Christmas tree taken down the next day. This patient wrote a letter of 29.10.2009 to Mrs Brook that he does not wish to have a Czech speaking person Miss “S”, a resident of Barton Street, who did not speak Slovak, for a Slovak interpreter. Mrs Brook confirmed receipt. On 16.12.09 the patient sent Mrs Brook an apology for not attending a gastroenterology appointment, after the booking office could not issue an assurance that he will not be made to have the same Czech person present during his hospital appointment. The booking clerk indicated that the booking of interpreters was now done outside the hospital by a language company called Tapestry, and the hospital could not say if, whom and when, Tapestry will send. To Dr Cathar’s knowledge, this contradicted the existing legal arrangement according to which Tapestry was one of the approved suppliers, as was Dr Cathar. But it may explain why there was suddenly an apparent surplus of interpreters attending. Mrs Brook confirmed receipt of Mr “B’s” apology. As far as Dr Cathar is aware, proper procedure does not require unqualified individuals possibly without a CRB to be attending other people’s hospital appointments - unless hospital appointments of people from Slovakia are not personal and confidential. Mr “B” had been seeking help regarding self-harm, as per his hospital visit on 01.06.09. Counselling, which he was told was available, could not take place without proper linguistic help. Mr “B” resumed self-harm while indicating stress as the reason. Left without an interpreter and unable to adequately express himself to medical personnel, he discharged himself from the hospital on several occasions prior to his death. The family begged for Slovak linguistic help, as during an incident at the Emergency Unit not long after Dr Cathar had been suspended. The Emergency ward sister phoned Dr Cathar asking her to urgently report to the ward, but when Dr Cathar phoned PALS, “Liz” told her that Dr Cathar is not welcome, but an “approved” interpreter will be supplied. No interpreter was provided, and a child was kept from going to school in order to interpret the basics. Eventually, only children not going to school interpreted for Mr “B”. Dr Cathar was threatened by Mrs Brook CBE in writing that police would remove her, if she entered the hospital with the view to continue interpreting for the patients, and should she refuse to leave when asked. On one occasion that family may have been supplied a Polish interpreter they sent away, because none of them spoke, and none understood Polish. It seems that some people believe there to be English and Non-English. If some individuals falling under the latter category fail to understand each other, it is no-one’s fault. The family was not prevented in January 2012 from having Dr Cathar to give the funeral speech. It would seem that no government funding was available for the purpose. Dr Cathar was also left to organise “as a friend” bereavement related financial help for the widow and the older orphans, when no-one else offered the widow support in those matters. A young man without testicles, who spoke English and did not need an interpreter, was forced to have the Czech speaker sitting in on his appointment with the endocrinologist, which left him and his mother distraught. A hand-written note signed by the mother was sent by email to the Complaints Department, to Mrs Brook who confirmed receipt. When left without a reply, another copy of the note with a request for an explanation was sent to Mrs Brook, but the Complaints Department has still not replied. (Copies of e-mails to Mrs Brook kept.) Mrs Brook and the Complaints Department have not replied to a single complaint by any of the Slovak or Czech patients, as far as Dr Cathar is aware. Mr Beech intercepted Dr Cathar in the hospital lobby when she arrived to help another acute cardiology case, Mr “P”, who relied on Dr Cathar as the only person familiar with his medical history, and Mr Beech made Dr Cathar to take from him a letter of 25.03.2010, in which he wrote: “... you do not have the necessary CRB clearance to enable you to work within the hospital environment.” Dr Cathar started working for the hospitals on a casual freelance basis in 2005. Mrs Brook and Mr Beech have never asked Dr Cathar to file a CRB. Dr Cathar obtained a CRB in 2005, for 24/7 access to vulnerable people and/or to their possessions, in luxury private care homes. As a Reiki teacher Dr Cathar met sick and vulnerable people since 1996. A double full colour page with personal tributes by people Dr Cathar has helped was published in the local press in 2000. Dr Cathar charged £4. Individuals were allowed to enter without any checks, and possibly without references and without CRB’s, and some (i.e. Dr Cathar and the Czech speaker) freely passed between wards and departments, including the theatre. Letters expressing concern that Dr Cathar “did not have a CRB” indicate that Mrs Brook and Mr Beech understood that access to the wards, including the delivery room, without CRBs was normally taking place, while they were aware that it was illegal. Other patients (E.g. Mr “D”) left the hospital without being seen at physiotherapy, as soon as the Czech speaker, Miss “S”, appeared. Miss “S” was paid approximately £10 per hour, while the taxpayer was charged £30 - £32 for her attendances, to Tapestry. During the months he stayed in the UK, Dr Cathar used to spot the Tapestry manager on Barton Street. Dr Cathar regularly drove through the Barton Street to appointments in local surgeries, and to accompany midwives and health visitors when they visited the patients. Barton Street in Gloucester has an upload on YouTube, with comments from people claiming to be familiar with the location: The Tapestry manager, to whom staff referred to as“The Boss”, introduced Miss “S” as a medical interpreter to the NHS, and via Tapestry she was made a Core member of a Social Services Child Protection group overseeing vulnerable Slovak children and families. When Dr Cathar approached the Tapestry manager in 2011, he failed to issue an assurance that Tapestry operated within the framework of the law - in that it would have collected CRBs from individuals engaged in hospitals and with children and vulnerable people. Instead, the manager gave an answer which Dr Cathar felt may have been evasive, and while referring to Data Protection. Dr Cathar registered her observation about Tapestry possibly not collecting CRBs as required by Law, and she forwarded the reply given to her by the Tapestry manager to appropriate authorities (while Dr Cathar kept copies). Dr Cathar learned in 2012 from a social worker that “Tapestry now requires CRBs to work with children and vulnerable people”. Dr Cathar herself had been introduced to the hospital via Tapestry. Tapestry did not require a CRB prior to engaging Dr Cathar with vulnerable adults and with children from 19.12.05 through to 15.02.07, on 44 occasions. An example of Patient Experience: The circumstances of a urinary procedure booked 16.06.09. Dr Cathar had been accompanying the patient on an on-going basis. Due to the added delicate nature of the procedure to be performed, the consultant specifically requested that Dr Cathar, then known as Dagmar, be booked. But Miss “S”, the Barton Streer resident, was made to attend, while now calling herself “Dagmar”. Miss “S” previously attended the Children’s Ward, on 01.06.09, under a different name. Miss “S” insisted that it is her, who is wanted. Miss “S” severely traumatised the unsuspecting patient who did not see her before, and emphatically did not want her. Miss “S” seemed determined to get into the theatre after the patient during an entire morning, and she engaged herself with staff at the reception and at PALS. The role of PALS is to provide patient support (see the Charter). Here the PALS, directly under Mrs Brook and Mr Beech, chose to act on behalf of a subcontractor of an external agency who had been forcing herself on a patient against that patient’s will, whilst causing the patient extreme distress. It would seem that the PALS charter does not apply to Slovak/Czech patients. It had then been suggested that Dr Cathar was “aggressive” towards Miss “S” and the version was supported by a receptionist. Mrs Brook wrote an e-mail to Dr Cathar reprimanding Dr Cathar about her behaviour, and reminding Dr Cathar of zero tolerance. Dr Cathar is not sure whether reception services might have fallen under Mrs Brook, but Dr Cathar believes that the indications of the possibility were growing from then on. The patient requested with his signature that the form above (names removed) be released to Dr Cathar. This situation then repeated itself with other patients. Even though Dr Cathar believes that she had been booked and patient files contained her name as the regular interpreter, Miss “S” had been turning up, now calling herself Dagmar, and insisting that it is her who is wanted and it is her who had been booked. Miss “S” was previously known as “Dasha”. A young mother who has brought to a home visit to a newborn her own child she had been unable to place in a nursery on that day, turned up as an interpreter while Dr Cathar believed she was booked, at the Children’s Centre Outpatients Cardiology, on 24.09.09. That earlier baby diagnosed as healthy at birth, became ill with an infection after the visit, and needed to be hospitalized for 10 days. Dr Cathar, in her capacity as a freelance linguist not bound by any exclusive contracts, helped the distraught parents to raise a complaint in English, for which she accepted no payment. To Dr Cathar’s knowledge no action had been taken against the interpreter or against Tapestry in the name of whom the interpreter attended, with her own child. That person became “approved for children” in the hospital, and was turning up, possibly when Miss “S” who became pregnant, could not attend. Dr Cathar was accused of unduly involving herself with the patients. Dr Cathar undue involvement with the patients has not been qualified. In one of her letters to Dr Cathar Mrs Brook made reference to joint decisions involving the hospital and the source of a report of October 2009, the last line on page 9 and first line on page 10 of which read: „Community Resources: The previous social workers report stated as Roma Slovakians, the family may have an inherent distrust of agencies that represent the rest of the population.” This appears to be a remark in relation to a nation whose name the writers appear not to know in their own language, in English, but they seemingly believe to know enough about to make a statement of the kind. An apology exists with regards to describing the nation with a wrong name, but no apology was given with regards to the remark. (NB: Compare this in an official report with the office joke about immigration officers that lead to immediate suspension and subsequent suicide of a laboratory technician during approximately the same period.) Dr Cathar learned from an employee of an agency that Dr Cathar was allegedly “taking money from people”, and she learned from patients, that subsequent persons attending as “interpreters” were mentioning Dr Cathar as someone they heard had been taking “briberies”. No such concerns were at any point conveyed to Dr Cathar who was backed by 101 signatures for her integrity and ability. She worked in the hospital by request of NHS nursing and medical staff. Dr Cathar held no decision making capacity to provide a motive for anyone to bribe her. Dr Cathar has not worked with affluent patients. Most patients Dr Cathar worked with were poor, some were destitute. Somebody who knew Dr Cathar, pushed in front of Dr Cathar a man with an untreated, gushing puss, finger wide hole in the leg, in expectation, that she would be the person who could help him. On seeing the man’s calf which seemed black and decaying while the man was alive on a Gloucester Street, Dr Cathar dropped her business, and immediately took the man to a walk-in GP, and then registered him with a surgery. Dr Cathar diligently continued to accompany that man, Mr “P”, to treatments over several months, because she promised to him, that she will go with him to all appointment till his leg is properly healed - even though she was aware that she will be refused a pay by primary care, who by then stripped her of work, but left the patients with no-one to replace her. When months later, after all local government organisations were ordered to stop using her services, and she lost all of her work, Dr Cathar met him in town with cloths on his feet, she bought him pair of shoes from the money she had left. In 2004, and prior to working in the hospital, Dr Cathar distributed in town her leaflets offering language services in form of help with letter writing or form filling for £10, which included her travelling approx. 10 miles from Cheltenham. Those with limited means could pay what they could afford, and the very poor did not need to pay. If others heard of briberies, it was not Dr Cathar. It was known that Dr Cathar was not only trusted, but that she was receiving affection from patients and from the needy. At the occasion of a meeting with NHS representatives on 09.09.09 and with reference to a Petition of 101 signatures, an NHS representative put it to Dr Cathar that “it is clear that these people love you” (That they love Dr Cathar). It would appear that mutually contradicting information may have been maintained about Dr Cathar. While it may be difficult to imagine someone being loved and taking briberies at the same time, Dr Cathar was of the impression that the fact that she was warmly received by the needy Slovak and Czech people, became used against her. MORE EVENTS During a further incident on 04.12.09 at audiology, the patient sent Miss “S”, the Barton Stree resident, away before Dr Cathar arrived. But Dr Cathar was accused of having “intimidated” both, Miss “S”, and the patient. The alleged method by which Dr Cathar may have intimidated anyone was not explained, and any motives Dr Cathar may have had for intimidating both people at the same time, were not indicated. On her arrival, Dr Cathar was verbally assaulted in a hospital open public space by a possibly set on member of staff, which would have been caught by the hospital camera, and Dr Cathar asked Mr Beech in good time to refer to the evidence, and to the witnesses. Mr Beech has not replied to Dr Cathar request, but has disciplined Dr Cathar, as per his letter of 07.12.09. Mrs Brook and Mr Beech were prior to these events given a Petition on the first page of which that patient alleged to have been intimidated, and her siblings, drew hearts for Dr Cathar, and they called her their “Mother Teresa”. For a brief appointment at Audiology on 04.12.09, Dr Cathar would have interpreted for the girl (she regularly accompanied to medical appointments) entirely without additional charge, because Dr Cathar was already paid for her attendance at another nearby hospital ward where staff took a break coinciding with the appointment. For an attendance that happened to be surplus under the circumstances, Miss “S” whom the patient did neither want, nor understand, was paid as the “professional Slovak interpreter”, for not speaking the language, and for being sent away. Dr Cathar arrived just as Miss “S” had been departing, and realizing that the patient dismissed her, Dr Cathar tried to lessen the blow to the heavily pregnant, and she said: “You know that these people (the family) do not want you”, and Miss “S” replied: “I know, but the agency (Tapestry) still sends me.” The patient did not only not understand Czech, but was also near deaf, and used to Dr Cathar’s way of communicating with her, which Dr Cathar had learned over several years of interaction with the family. To Dr Cathar knowledge, Dr Cathar was the only interpreter the patient at the time adequately understood. Following the perceived assault on Dr Cathar, Dr Cathar left Audiology and the patient had been seen, and possibly also offended by the same member of staff. But Mr Beech with Mrs Brook’s consent put the following on file regarding Dr Cathar: “I have been advised by the clinic staff that you intimidated the Tapestry interpreter and the patient, so much so that she left the clinic without having her appointment.” Dr Cathar was denied any grievance procedure in relation to the incident, no one allowed the patient to present her witness statements, or point to proofs which may have shown that Mr Beech’s statements were incorrect. Dr Cathar’s written response to the allegations was not responded to. It is not clear whether anyone looked into the patient file to see what may have been entered by hospital staff on that day. At a subsequent similar event at physiotherapy, a possibly overweight Mr Beech chased after a departing Dr Cathar along the length of the connecting corridor between the Outpatients and the tower building. He confronted Dr Cathar in a manner which she found threatening, and he forced her to return into a room where he previously seated the member of staff who in Dr Cathar opinion generated a scene, and in that third party’s presence, Dr Cathar felt verbally assaulted by Mr Beech, while he listed a catalogue of Dr Cathar’s alleged transgressions for which Mr Beech showed no proofs and any proofs there may have been, Dr Cathar believes, proved that Dr Cathar was innocent. Dr Cathar felt that on this occasion she had been deliberately violated and humiliated by Mr Beech in front of the receptionist who previously confirmed to have been advised to dismiss her, if she turned up. The receptionist had shown to Dr Cathar the “orange folder” from which Dr Cathar’s name had been against existing legal arrangements removed, thus not enabling physiotherapy staff to book her, and this had been done without any notification to Dr Cathar. Dr Cathar believes that in the light of the existing legal arrangements that conduct represented discrimination. When the hospital accepted Dr Cathar as an approved interpreter, Dr Cathar signed a confidentiality agreement. Dr Cathar did not have to sign a confidentiality agreement with Tapestry. Dr Cathar was recruited by Tapestry based on a single e-mail to the manager. Dr Cathar became included into the hospital approved list only after she regularly attended for many months and had superior feedback from staff. After Dr Cathar asked for a disclosure, it transpired that additional unspecified accusations were made about her without a single piece of evidence and relating to no facts, even with reference to the police, and this had been entered into secret files to affect her career and reputation. No standard procedure had been followed at any point and Dr Cathar was not given the opportunity to respond. In 2010 she raised a complaint against Mrs Brook and Mr Beech, which had been confirmed as received, but was not progressed. Complaints are under Mrs Brook and Mr Beech. In that complaint amongst other things (8 pages in total) Dr Cathar wrote: On Page 1: I had to witness vulnerable people’s pain, but was rendered unable to help alleviate suffering and even abuse, and that included a small child eventually beaten into a coma. I found being in that position unbearable. … Since Mrs. Brook took office as Head of Patient Experience, Slovak speaking patients’ letters, complaints and wishes seemed ignored, overridden and disregarded by Mrs. Brook in a society where neglecting animals may warrant prosecution. And on Page 6: When (Dr’s name removed), senior partner at (surgery name removed) which is the surgery with the largest intake of patients from ethnic minorities wrote a letter to the hospital, possibly also in support of my continued services, I got (yet again!) verbally abused by Mr. Beech in his office, for (Dr’s name removed) having possibly praised and further demanded my work. That complaint was copied by e-mail, 02 May 2010 14:25, to five additional recipients, which included the Hospital CE Frank Harsent, Procurement, and the Department of Health. Dr Cathar believes that such conduct as applied in relation to her would against any British subject, or any other subject in Britain, be unthinkable. Dr Cathar is a British subject since 1983. She was born in Slovakia. It seems that people born in Slovakia have fewer rights than animals in Britain. Dr Cathar wrote to the Head of the Legal Department and to Dr Harsent, the Hospital Chief Executive stating, that in her personal opinion, forcing a woman with learning difficulties to give birth to a disabled child that had been booked for abortion is “worse than murder”. Mrs Brook had subsequently been allowed not to pay for Dr Cathar’s outstanding invoices, and Mrs Brook did not need to give a valid reason. Invoices were paid only after Dr Cathar’s accountant wrote to Mrs Brook asking her whether Dr Cathar needs to write to the consultants who had duly confirmed the receipt of Dr Cathar’s services with their signatures. Mrs Brook replied there is no need, and Invoices were paid in April 2012. Amongst the attempted to be rejected invoices was an invoice for interpretation on 07.01.10. The father of the disabled child had been during this consultation advised that the disability of an older child is likely to be genetic. Based on this information, the family decided to abort the new pregnancy discovered days later. When Dr Cathar failed to turn up at the hospital for the pregnant lady’s subsequent appointment in order to progress the abortion, the family phoned Dr Cathar and they cried and screamed into the phone. But Dr Cathar had to tell them that if she attended, police would remove her. On this basis the disabled child was born. Dr Cathar is still reliving the phone call three years on, unable to carry on with normal life. By January 2013 Dr Cathar receives for three years medical treatment and personal support from more than one professional, due to the flashbacks and severe trauma resultant from the events surrounding her persecution, and from how her inability to help them impacted on the patients and their families, including small children. In January 2013 the BBC West produced for InsideOut a film on Dr Cathar based on detailed provocation by an agent provocateur, Mr Chris Geiger, which claimed that she was dishing out illegal cancer treatments at £280 a session and that a patient died during a Dhaxem treatment. The patient died during chemotherapy four years after Dr Cathar last saw them. It is fully documented in relevant government files that Dr Cathar stopped offering healing on a commercial basis in 2003, because she was unemployed and that had been verified by the DWP. Between 2005 and 2010 she worked, initially part time, as a linguist and did not acquire a single new client for healing. Since 2010, Dr Cathar was too ill to have been able to work beyond maybe an hour a week. She took pity on the provocateur who stated to her on the phone that he was “So desperate!” She hoped that she could alleviate his alleged mental suffering with her compassion and some minor advice if she acceded to meeting him. Since, Dr Cathar pledged to never receive into her trust another member of the public. On being suspended, Dr Cathar promptly wrote to Mrs Brook that two abortions urgently needed to go ahead, but Mrs Brook has not responded. The other (not disabled) child booked for abortion was also born as the result of Dr Cathar not attending a follow up appointment where the pregnant lady had been booked for a late abortion. These people also phoned Dr Cathar, and they too, cried. It seems that Miss “S” had been attending appointments where Dr Cathar believed to have been booked up to the point when also Dr Cathar could attend. Once Dr Cathar was eliminated, attendances were possibly curtailed regardless of the consequences. Dr Harsent also failed to give an assurance that Gejza G was enabled to properly understand medical instruction before he died. Dr Cathar was Gejza’s speaker. He and many other patients who needed adequate linguistic help wrote to Mrs Brook explaining why they needed a continuation of the existing services, and to Dr Cathar knowledge, Mrs Brook overrode all of their requests without responding to a single one of their letters. Slovak patients were forced to have the 23 years old Miss “S”, who did not speak Slovak. Translations of letters she presented in the name of hospital consultants showed that she would not have as much as understood Slovak properly. Miss “S” was also given jobs for which she was paid directly by the NHS, and which therefore did not go through Tapestry. One such job was the translation of a letter of 01.12.09 by a consultant. That translation was substandard, composed in primitive language, (e.g. the patient was “grizzling”) and it contained apparent distortions which Dr Cathar witnessed, had caused distress to people who received the translation. The original letter in English used in three consecutive instances the word “abuse”, which translates as “zneužívanie”, but the translation contained the correct equivalent only in two instances, while in the third instance the same word had become substituted with the word “týranie”. This is a stronger word, meaning “torture”. The choice of this term caused in Dr Cathar’s opinion unimaginable distress to a parent of the child alleged to be possibly “tortured” (according to Miss “S” “translation”), instead of just “abused”(as stated in the consultant’s letter to be translated). That distraught parent was Mr “B” who died from self-harm, allegedly resultant from stress. Dr Cathar wrote a 6 page discourse of 12.12.09 delivered to Mr Beech about the inadequacy of the translation for which Miss “S” was allegedly paid a sum of about £180. Miss “S” did not speak and did seemingly not as much as properly understand Slovak. Dr Cathar found the translation inferior to translations obtainable at the push of a button on the Google automatic translation facility. How well Miss “S” understood Slovak may have been indicated in that her translation contained a reference to a female Miss “S” personally knew, but in Slovak the person was incorrectly introduced as a male. Miss “S” may have asked someone else to do the translation for her. Miss “S” was paid from NHS funds for more than one such translation and she continued being engaged as a “Slovak interpreter” even after Mr Beech received Dr Cathar’s information and proofs of the quality of translations she presented in the name of hospital consultants. Dr Cathar had been concerned that a Czech speaker was being supplied instead of a Slovak speaker where Slovak was asked for, and Mr Beech told Dr Cathar that he had allegedly written to the “Slovakian” Embassy and allegedly the embassy replied that “Slovakian” and Czech people would generally understand each other. Dr Cathar suggested that educated Slovaks closer to the border with the Czech Republic would understand Czech, but the situation 20 years after the two nations had separated, may not be the same many miles to the east with disabled people, and those with a limited hearing. Dr Cathar has a copy of the conditions of the legal tender for the provision of languages, where Slovak is listed as a language to be serviced. Hence, Slovak should by law not be wilfully replaced by other languages. Dr Cathar was disciplined for communicating with medical staff. Mr Beech strictly forbade Dr Cathar to communicate with hospital consultants, and he told her that he will be deciding about the provision of languages; the consultants will not have a say in this. “Disciplinary actions” on this basis were used by Mrs Brook and Mr Beech to seemingly build up to Dr Cathar’s suspension. Dr Cathar till this day continues to mediate and help if staff, or the patients, phone her, as with regards to Mr “V” in January 2013. Not long after Mrs Brook’s arrival in January 2009, Dr Cathar’s invoices stopped being paid properly. Whilst Dr Cathar worked for the hospital almost daily, and relied on being paid regularly, from July 2009 to September 2009 she was not paid a single penny, and Mrs Brook did not respond to her mounting distress. Perhaps one can imagine the amount of hardship it caused to Dr Cathar when, instead of being paid every 2 weeks, she was not paid for over 2 months. Eventually the reply was given, that a member of Mrs Brook’s staff went for an operation and those in the office did not know how to process invoices, which may have included Mrs Brook. Explanations regarding delays in invoices being paid at other occasions have not tallied with information given by the finance department. As an example, here is an extract from Dr Cathar’s e-mail to the Finance Department: 01/04/2011 10:46 Mrs Brook states that Invoices 0550 and 0551 were being processed. Allegedly, these have promptly been dealt with by the complaints department. When I phoned creditor payments at least two weeks after the time it is alleged approval was given, I was told that any of my outstanding Invoices are still with Mrs Brook, and that was 5 weeks after I submitted them… Mrs Brook and Mr Beech have on several occasions stated that the verification of Invoices is done quickly. Mr Beech stated that he normally does this within 2 days from receiving an Invoice. When Mr Beech took over the approval of Invoices, he returned Invoices to Dr Cathar because she gave from her own free will discounts to the hospital. Mr Beech also returned to Dr Cathar an invoice over a discrepancy of 2 pence (due to her misreading the last digit). Mr Beech stated it was a matter of principles. Mr Beech has not returned to Dr Cathar an Invoice where she failed to apply a night time surcharge and has done herself short by approximately £100. Dr Cathar became so traumatised by not being paid on time, having returned her Invoices, or not being paid some of the Invoices while not receiving an explanation as to why they are not paid, that she eventually became unable to present Invoices at all. She became mentally ill from abuse, and from having to witness the suffering of people who loved and trusted her. Dr Cathar needed a team of professionals to encourage her to collate her attendance confirmations and produce any Invoices at all. Dr Cathar informed the hospital, Mrs Brook, Dr Harsent and the Legal department, of her impaired ability to communicate and to present Invoices. Mrs Brook wrote to Dr Cathar giving a list of invoices she will not pay because “she does not see any proofs of Dr Cathar having attended” when each and every one of those invoices attempted to be rejected contained an attachment with the signature of a professional confirming the receipt of Dr Cathar’s services. Dr Cathar believes that she was deliberately made ill by apparent abuse to which she was not allowed to as much as present her version of events, and while the doors to any form of Justice had seemingly been closed to her - possibly due to her connection with Slovakia. Dr Cathar wrote to the Legal Department that she has difficulties, and that she needs to take anti-sickness tablets in order to be able to communicate with Mrs Brook. Dr Cathar’s resentment meant that she had been able to present only a part of the Invoices by the deadline the hospital gave her, which means that obligations towards her in form of unpaid work remained outstanding. As an example, this included a call out to the theatre for a cancer patient booked for an operation; but left without an interpreter when Dr Cathar was suspended, and the theatre staff could not go ahead without an interpreter. Dr Cathar responded, because it was in the Cheltenham hospital. Dr Cathar hoped that Mrs Brook, who was based in Gloucester, will not immediately know that Dr Cathar was there, and would therefore not be able to make the police to come and get Dr Cathar for helping a desperate man ready to go under the knife on the operating table. While some language companies would want Dr Cathar to attend other hospitals shires apart, because, they claim, there are no other interpreters with medical experience and with CRBs to work with children and vulnerable people in the county, this hospital trust allegedly supplied in September 2012 for a gravely ill patient and their family a local person who refused to give their name, but asserted to be interpreting at that hospital “for years”. This would be, while primary care allegedly could not supply a single Slovak or Czech interpreter, even though the Chief Executive wrote a letter of 06.10.09 indicating … that the language company confirmed to us that they have recently recruited “additional local Slovak interpreters who, following final checks for relevant qualifications will be available to provide services…” (Underlined Corascendea). While unwanted interpreters appeared to have been forced on patients since 2009, and they were paid from NHS funds, Mrs Brook told Dr Cathar prior to her suspension in 2010 on more than one occasion, that if Dr Cathar wants to interpret, she can do so unpaid, “as a friend”. It would apper that Mrs Brook’s preference for employing friends as professional linguists at a major NHS hospital trust possibly continues – while elsewhere the criteria for hospital entry and for access to children and vulnerable people are made to look tightening, to the general public.