Talk:Ian Kennedy (legal scholar)

message: In the following BMJ article: 
http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d2900.extract
 he admits he altered figures regarding excess deaths at Mid Staffs Hospital.  Is this sufficient for the Solicitors Regulation Authority to issue a written rebuke?   His lame excuse for ditching evidence of the high unexpected death rate at this Skutari-esque health care facility was that he felt people would not be able to understand statistics.  Was his function not to ensure everyone could understand them?  This led to no action being taken to rectify the poor standards there, and to additional deaths, as well as making the public feel the entire legal profession are untrustworthy.  Is this covered by the SRA Code of Conduct?
Rule 3 of SRA disciplinary powers indicates that the Mid Staffs victims should put in a complaint about this admission, and  get a 'written rebuke ' issued.
Rule 3 – Disciplinary powers says :
(1)The circumstances in which the SRA may make a disciplinary decision to
give a regulated person a written rebuke  are when the following three
conditions are met:
(a)the first condition is that the SRA is satisfied that the act or
omission by the regulated person which gives rise to the SRA finding
fulfils one or more of the following in that it:
(i)was deliberate  [ADMITTED IN ARTICLE]
(ii)caused or had the potential to cause loss or significant inconvenience
to any other person; [CAUSED DEATHS OF MANY MORE PEOPLE]
(iii) was or was related to a failure or refusal to ascertain, recognise or
comply with the regulated person's professional or regulatory
obligations such as, but not limited to, compliance with requirements
imposed by legislation or rules made pursuant to legislation, the SRA,
the Law Society, the Legal Complaints Service, the Tribunal or the
court; [HE HAD A DUTY TO BE HONEST AND CONSIDER ALL THE EVIDENCE]
(iv)continued for an unreasonable period taking into account its
seriousness; [HE ADMITS IT WAS FOR 3 YEARS IN THE ARTICLE]
(v)persisted after the regulated person realised or should have realised
that it was improper; [MUST HAVE KNOWN IT WAS]
(vi)had the potential to mislead clients, the court or other
persons, whether or not that was appreciated by the regulated person;
[WAS DESIGNED TO MISLEAD]
(vii)affected or had the potential to affect a vulnerable person or child;
[MANY PATIENTS ARE VULNERABLE , AND SOME WERE CHILDREN.  ALSO THE
CHILDREN OF VICTIMS WERE AFFECTED BY THEIR DEATHS].
(viii)affected or had the potential to affect a substantial, high-value or
high-profile matter; or [HE DID IT BECAUSE IT WAS A HIGH PROFILE
MATTER]
(ix)formed or forms part of a pattern of misconduct or other regulatory
failure by the regulated person;
212.139.101.189 (talk) 09:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fiddled the death statistics for Mid Staffs Hospital whilst Head of the HealthCare Commisssion 

message: "Ian Kennedy (lawyer)" is not unique as there is an Ian Kennedy QC.  This one is Professor Sir Ian Kennedy.  Can anyone advise what the Wikipedia naming convention would suggest as a unique name. Millstream3 (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to sweat this yet, really, until and unless the QC becomes notable. In that case, we could look at what really distinguishes the two of them (and "Sir Ian" would not be the way to go, given our naming conventions). --Orange Mike  |  Talk 20:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unique name of article